Trump urges Spain to build a wall..across the Sahara desert.

First topic message reminder :

Because, wait for it....The Sahara desert cant be longer than the Mexican wall he plans to build.

"Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon recommended building a wall across the Sahara to solve Europe's migrant crisis, Spain's foreign minister says.
Josep Borrell, also a former President of the European Parliament, disagreed with the strategy.
The comments came during a visit Mr Borrell made to the US at the end of June.

Mr Trump's pledge to build a wall between the US and Mexico was one of his best-known election promises.

Mr Borrell recounted his conversation with the US president at a lunch event in Madrid this week, Spain's foreign ministry confirmed to the BBC.
"The border with the Sahara cannot be bigger than our border with Mexico," Mr Borrell quoted Mr Trump as saying.
The US-Mexico border is 1,954 miles (3,145 km) long. The Sahara desert stretches for 3,000 miles."


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45586070

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which is a copout

You lefties are full of it and get tied up in knots over a simple question

Wow

Simple question, simple answer.  You don't need to make it more complex.

Most particularly, you don't need an expensive wall--$25-billion at the latest estimate for the US-Mexico border--when all you are doing is posting a sign.  Most immigrants come in through the ports-of-entry, anyway.  It's ridiculous.

How am I being complex? When I am asking you about barriers on the subway and whether you think they should be removed?

After so many posts, you have still failed to answer this

So why are you not championing removing these barriers on the subway and for people to then not pay?

Waste of time, didge. You're chasing rabbit-holes.

Original Quill wrote:Waste of time, didge.  You're chasing rabbit-holes.  

Just chasing you for an actual answer you keep avoiding Quill

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Waste of time, didge.  You're chasing rabbit-holes.  

Just chasing you for an actual answer you keep avoiding Quill

Waffle...

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Just chasing you for an actual answer you keep avoiding Quill

Waffle...

Jackanory

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:That just shows the ludicrousness of talk about walls.  Perhaps once historically relevant, they are now only symbolic.  As they say in Texas, the answer to a 30-foot wall is a 31-foot ladder.

This shows how feeble-minded Trump is.  That he urges that we actually spend $25-billion to make it happen, shows us how costly it is to have a feeble-minded president.

The failed plots of the ignorant become the foundation for despotism.

The only thing I see feeble minded. Is the arguments from the left

Again

Shall we dismantle all barriers at airports, ports, train stations etc?

Fuck off, Dodge...

Nobody is talking about "dismantling" anything..

You're the only one dodging, deflecting and obfuscating here -- you have got about as far away from the O/P as you possibly could with your increasingly ridiculous comparisons.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Didge wrote:

The only thing I see feeble minded. Is the arguments from the left

Again

Shall we dismantle all barriers at airports, ports, train stations etc?

Fuck off, Dodge...

Nobody is talking about "dismantling" anything..

You're the only one dodging, deflecting and obfuscating here --  you have got about as far away from the O/P as you possibly could with your increasingly ridiculous comparisons.

Where should i fuck off to oh wolfie one?

How am I deflecting or obfuscating here?

I am simple showing the double standard portrayed by people.

None here would ever call for the barriers at the subway, train or airports to be pulled down would they?

As they expect people to have valid tickets, visa's and passports

So how am i far away from the central view to have barriers against people gaining entry, when they have no right to do so?

The point is Trump is extreme and his view is extreme to build a wall and yet, people are rightly concerned at people gaining access to the subway/border into the US and constantly classed as racist.

Would they say the same to people bemoaning people jumping the fare on the subway? Would you class them as racist?

Of course not and hence the hypocrisy

Didge wrote:How am I deflecting or obfuscating here?

I am simple showing the double standard portrayed by people.

But I think the point is, you’ve failed to do that. As wolf says, the OP is the inefficacy of a wall in the modern day. It’s a singular subject. A duplicity does not even enter the discussion.

Didge wrote:None here would ever call for the barriers at the subway, train or airports to be pulled down would they?

As they expect people to have valid tickets, visa's and passports

In subways, train stations and airports, barriers serve a communication purpose—they direct and instruct people as to destinations. As long as they serve a purpose, there is no question. But an expensive wall is completely unnecessary, and unnecessarily wasteful. A police tape, or some equivalent will do fine.

Didge wrote:So how am i far away from the central view to have barriers against people gaining entry, when they have no right to do so?

There are many reasons for directing people, some quite pleasing. A decorative velvet covered rope directs people to the entrance to a concert hall. Rights need not enter the issue.

Didge wrote:The point is Trump is extreme and his view is extreme to build a wall and…

The point is, further, that Trump is willing to waste $25-billion on the endeavor in the US. And, lo, here he is giving the same bad advice to Spain.

Didge wrote:...yet people are rightly concerned at people gaining access to the subway/border into the US and constantly classed as racist.

Would they say the same to people bemoaning people jumping the fare on the subway? Would you class them as racist?

Of course not and hence the hypocrisy

Race does not enter into the issue. This needless subject is where wolf claims you are deflecting and obfuscating.

I tend to give you the benefit of the doubt, and call it a loss of concentration. To me, it’s just another rabbit-hole where you wander off and get lost.

Whether intentional or not, it is frustrating to your interlocutor as it terminates the discussion without resolution.

So, it's really not you, personally, but your tendency to wander off. I think wolf’s post is well-pointed.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:How am I deflecting or obfuscating here?

I am simple showing the double standard portrayed by people.

But I think the point is, you’ve failed to do that.  As wolf says, the OP is the inefficacy of a wall in the modern day.  It’s a singular subject.  A duplicity does not even enter the discussion.

Didge wrote:Actually I am easily showing up the astounding hystocracy of people on this

In subways, train stations and airports, barriers serve a communication purpose—they direct and instruct people as to destinations.    As long as they serve a purpose, there is no question.  But an expensive wall is completely unnecessary, and unnecessarily wasteful.  A police tape, or some equivalent will do fine.

Didge wrote:What?

Communication?



The barriers within them, serve as means to ensure people with only valid tickets and passports can then pass through to then use the facilities. Which you do also have border controls. This would then just be a gigntic version of what is already in place for the subway, airports, ports etc

There are many reasons for directing people, some quite pleasing.  A decorative velvet covered rope directs people to the entrance to a concert hall.  Rights need not enter the issue.

Didge wrote:Zero relevance

So, it's really not you, personally, but your tendency to wander off.  I think wolf’s post is well-pointed.

You can think all you like, he fact of the matter is in every other situation people back security barriers

As stated a wall would simple be an gigantic version of this

Didge wrote:You can think all you like, he fact of the matter is in every other situation people back security barriers

As stated a wall would simple be an gigantic version of this

...and expensive.

I believe that is the point.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:You can think all you like, he fact of the matter is in every other situation people back security barriers

As stated a wall would simple be an gigantic version of this

...and expensive.

I believe that is the point.

So the only valid reason you have offered up

Its also impractical, as i stated already

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

...and expensive.

I believe that is the point.

So the only valid reason you have offered up

I said, when you were arguing some complex race component, that it was a simple argument. Wolf told you that too.

You were the one chasing rabbit-holes about some racial implication, etc., etc.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

So the only valid reason you have offered up

I said, when you were arguing some complex race component, that it was a simple argument.  Wolf told you that too.

You were the one chasing rabbit-holes about some racial implication, etc., etc.

Never chased any rabbit holes at all and showed up the many poor arguments

I see you want to measure dicks now

Sorry bud, you will always lose on that front

You two /\

Syl wrote:You two /\

Please don't include me in his foibles.  I am simply explaining how wolf is quite correct in his assessment of didge's answers (see, above, sixth from top).

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:You two /\

Please don't include me in his foibles.  I am simply explaining how wolf is quite correct in his assessment of didge's answers (see, above, sixth from top).

I think you both give each other a run for the money tbh.

You give him a good run too.

In truth, he's easy. He's not linear-minded, and he tends to splatter stuff up against the wall to see what sticks. You have to have a lot of patience with him.

Original Quill wrote:You give him a good run too.

In truth, he's easy.  He's not linear-minded, and he tends to splatter stuff up against the wall to see what sticks.  You have to have a lot of patience with him.

Well at the risk of getting a gobfull because we are talking about him ...I for one do have a lot of patience with him because i like debating (or often arguing) with him sometimes.

He is honest and responsive, and though he often brings in red herrings, I think that happens  because thats  just the way his mind works...he doesnt do it deliberately .he just gets distracted from the point of the argument..
But there is no denying he is intelligent and interesting.....often annoying and unusual .....which on any forum is good.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:You give him a good run too.

In truth, he's easy.  He's not linear-minded, and he tends to splatter stuff up against the wall to see what sticks.  You have to have a lot of patience with him.

Well at the risk of getting a gobfull because we are talking about him ...I for one do have a lot of patience with him because i like debating (or often arguing) with him sometimes.

He is honest and responsive, and though he often brings in red herrings, I think that happens  because thats  just the way his mind works...he doesnt do it deliberately .he just gets distracted from the point of the argument..
But there is no denying he is intelligent and interesting.....often annoying and unusual .....which on any forum is good.

For me, he's like a misguided student, one of several that I had when I was teaching university. I don't just slap him down, like others. I like to give him a little coaching, to try to improve his learning and reasoning. But alas, his narcissistic need to view debate as a competition, gets in the way.

Honest?? Hmmm...I must say, I was greatly disappointed in him when I caught him cheating on quotes. I no longer think of him as honest. I think of him as trying--sometimes--but I think his narcissism gets the better of his honesty. It's too important to him to win, so he intentionally cheats--sometimes.

I remember the big fuss about him altering a quote, but imo he didnt do it deliberately, didn't he insert something of his own in a quoted  reply and instead of making it obvious he had done so, it looked like the other person (you) had said it

I might be wrong but i honestly thought he had just messed up the quote, which is sometimes easily done.

I do agree he has to win every argument though....thats usually when people give up and leave him to it.

Off for the night...sleep well .x

Oh look, its the mud slinging brigade, that have nothing better to do than slag posters off.

Didge wrote:Oh look, its the mud slinging brigade, that have nothing better to do than slag posters off.

On the contrary. I think I was being rather complimentary considering.

Didge wrote:Oh look, its the mud slinging brigade, that have nothing better to do than slag posters off.

On the contrary. I think I was being rather complimentary considering.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:Oh look, its the mud slinging brigade, that have nothing better to do than slag posters off.

On the contrary. I think I was being rather complimentary considering.

I was going to comment similar but didn't want to get him started  

@didge
Sorry, too busy this week

Syl wrote:I remember the big fuss about him altering a quote, but imo he didnt do it deliberately, didn't  he insert something of his own in a quoted  reply and instead of making it obvious he had done so, it looked like the other person (you) had said it

I might be wrong but i honestly thought he had just messed up the quote, which is sometimes easily done.

I do agree he has to win every argument though....thats usually when people give up and leave him to it.

Off for the night...sleep well .x

One doesn't surreptitiously add anything to the post of another without being deceitful, and conscious of one's own deceit. You can extrapolate, or trim down a quote to focus in on something...but adding? No, that's putting your own words down and attributing them to another. I'm sure you understand that, Syl. Everyone does. It could hardly be an accidents, since you have no business adding anything!

That was a red line for me. Because, it's not possible that such a move was a mistake, a misinterpretation, or a typo. To add content to another person's post is deliberately, and knowingly dishonest.

That's when I knew that didge's narcissism would lead him into the realm of deceit. That's a person whose dishonesty is beyond repair.

I don't understand, how can you alter some ones post ?

nicko wrote:I don't understand,  how can you alter some ones post ?

By pressing the quote button and then altering their text within the quote. It isn’t a function that you, ever use, as you always reply on a new post.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I remember the big fuss about him altering a quote, but imo he didnt do it deliberately, didn't  he insert something of his own in a quoted  reply and instead of making it obvious he had done so, it looked like the other person (you) had said it

I might be wrong but i honestly thought he had just messed up the quote, which is sometimes easily done.

I do agree he has to win every argument though....thats usually when people give up and leave him to it.

Off for the night...sleep well .x

One doesn't surreptitiously add anything to the post of another without being deceitful, and conscious of one's own deceit.  You can extrapolate, or trim down a quote to focus in on something...but adding?  No, that's putting your own words down and attributing them to another.  I'm sure you understand that, Syl.  Everyone does.  It could hardly be an accidents, since you have no business adding anything!

But I can add something here...in your post, to answer the point you have just made

That was a red line for me.  Because, it's not possible that such a move was a mistake, a misinterpretation, or a typo.  To add content to another person's post is deliberately, and knowingly dishonest.

I got that tip off LF, it sometimes makes it easier if the post I am answering is long, so I can give my answers in the right order.

That's when I knew that didge's narcissism would lead him into the realm of deceit.  That's a person whose dishonesty is beyond repair.

If I forgot to highlight it, it would look as if I was adding something deliberately to the post you made....but it would be accidental.
Thats why I think Didge could have just made a mistake.

A poster (not here) who shall remain nameless once "edited" my own post "...I deplore everything that the British National Party stands for..." to read "...I support everything that the British National Party stands for..." and then, for more than a year used it as so-called evidence that I was the Press Officer of the BNP!

In my opinion, altering any quote in this way should result in an immediate and permanent ban from a forum.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:A poster (not here) who shall remain nameless once "edited" my own post "...I deplore everything that the British National Party stands for..." to read "...I support everything that the British National Party stands for..." and then, for more than a year used it as so-called evidence that I was the Press Officer of the BNP!

In my opinion, altering any quote in this way should result in an immediate and permanent ban from a forum.

Thats so wrong.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

One doesn't surreptitiously add anything to the post of another without being deceitful, and conscious of one's own deceit.  You can extrapolate, or trim down a quote to focus in on something...but adding?  No, that's putting your own words down and attributing them to another.  I'm sure you understand that, Syl.  Everyone does.  It could hardly be an accidents, since you have no business adding anything!

But I can add something here...in your post, to answer the point you have just made

That was a red line for me.  Because, it's not possible that such a move was a mistake, a misinterpretation, or a typo.  To add content to another person's post is deliberately, and knowingly dishonest.

I got that tip off LF, it sometimes makes it easier if the post I am answering is long, so I can give my answers in the right order.

That's when I knew that didge's narcissism would lead him into the realm of deceit.  That's a person whose dishonesty is beyond repair.

If I forgot to highlight it, it would look as if I was adding something deliberately to the post you made....but it would be accidental.
Thats why I think Didge could have just made a mistake.

Syl, we are not concerned here with ‘making it look like…’.  Didge intentionally falsified, no less.  See what what I said, above.  It's proper to shorten a post, extrapolating smaller passages to focus into a point.

You are talking about making in-text, marginal notes, which on computer are delineated by color coding.  It's a practice, started back when real books were read, and one penciled in notes in the margin.  Marginal notes must be carefully handled as well.  But didge was actually removing and adding posted text, not making marginal notes.  What happened to my words he removed?  Whence came the words he added?  That is deliberate alteration, and false attribution of words.

It is categorically different from adding your words to someone else's post.  What didge did was substitute and add words that were not mine, trying to make it appear that those were my words.  That's intentional, affirmative, deliberate creation of a falsehood.  It can't be mistaken as extrapolation, or any kind of mistake.

I know Vic is a stickler on citation, as am I. We've had the underlying discussion before. Vic's position goes to extrapolation, and cannot be construed as advising one to create and add words to the post of another. And marginal notes must be distinguished from original text. Simply put, you don’t write words down and attribute them to others...it's dishonest.

So that is lie number 6 by Quill

As stated at the time, I completed screwed up quoting between the posts

It was a simple as that and here again, Quill is clearly constantly wound up by me, he is trying to convince Syl to his lies

Well as seen, she rightly is not buying Quills bullshit

Didge wrote:So that is lie number 6 by Quill

As stated at the time, I completed screwed up quoting between the posts

It was a simple as that and here again, Quill is clearly constantly wound up by me, he is trying to convince Syl to his lies

Well as seen, she rightly is not buying Quills bullshit

Didge, you lie your way in, and you lie your way out. All because you want to win. Winning is way more important to you than truth.

It's just the way you were wired, mate.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So that is lie number 6 by Quill

As stated at the time, I completed screwed up quoting between the posts

It was a simple as that and here again, Quill is clearly constantly wound up by me, he is trying to convince Syl to his lies

Well as seen, she rightly is not buying Quills bullshit

Didge, you lie your way in, and you lie your way out.  All because you want to win.  Winning is way more important to you than truth.

It's just the way you were wired, mate.

I suggest you grow up little boy and stop pathetically trying to continually shit stir.

Not able to let things go

Most adults get past minor grudges, which clearly you are unable to

So go and have a little cry to yourself eh

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Didge, you lie your way in, and you lie your way out.  All because you want to win.  Winning is way more important to you than truth.

It's just the way you were wired, mate.

I suggest you grow up little boy and stop pathetically trying to continually shit stir.

Not able to let things go

New tactic, didge? Confess and avoid?

Didge wrote:Most adults get past minor grudges, which clearly you are unable to

So go and have a little cry to yourself eh

People forgive...but they never forget. Once you know that a person is capable of gratuitous dishonesty, you never know when, and in what context, he will resort to it again. Better safe than sorry, is another old saying that comes to mind.

Didge, you are upset. I understand. But you brought this upon yourself. It's come up again here, as is bound to happen. As Sir Walter Scott observed: "Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive" People may forgive, but never do they forget.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:A poster (not here) who shall remain nameless once "edited" my own post "...I deplore everything that the British National Party stands for..." to read "...I support everything that the British National Party stands for..." and then, for more than a year used it as so-called evidence that I was the Press Officer of the BNP!

In my opinion, altering any quote in this way should result in an immediate and permanent ban from a forum.

I do agree, Fred.  I reported this transgression to the mods of NewsFix, but they thought this behavior was acceptable...or, at least permissible. Nothing happened.

And it's infuriating.  Not only is it outright dishonesty, but it is theft of your right to speak for yourself.  It's two crimes in one.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

I suggest you grow up little boy and stop pathetically trying to continually shit stir.

Not able to let things go

New tactic, didge?  Confess and avoid?

Didge wrote:Most adults get past minor grudges, which clearly you are unable to

So go and have a little cry to yourself eh

People forgive...but they never forget.  Once you know that a person is capable of gratuitous dishonesty, you never know when, and in what context, he will resort to it again.  Better safe than sorry, is another old saying that comes to mind.

Didge, you are upset.  I understand.  But you brought this upon yourself.  It's come up again here, as is bound to happen.  As Sir Walter Scott observed: "Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"  People may forgive, but never do they forget.  

So basically you are admitting to being a big baby

Do you want a tissue to dry your eyes out?

Again grow up

Didge wrote:So basically you are admitting to being a big baby

Do you want a tissue to dry your eyes out?

Again grow up

BBC wrote:Spain has no sovereignty over the Sahara, but it does possess two small enclaves on the north African coast, Ceuta and Melilla, separated from Morocco by controversial wire fences.

A wall on the southern border of the US, which is only 1,950-miles long, is estimated to cost $25-billion.  To put up 3,000-miles of wall, for 'two small enclaves', on a continent where the nation in question is not even located... ...brings to mind someone who has too much money, and nowhere to spend it.

Reminds me of our Labour Party, not enough money, but plenty of ideas where to spend it !

nicko wrote:Reminds me of our Labour Party,   not enough money, but plenty of ideas where to spend it !

Significant point, well made, nicko.  Neither party really want's to limit spending.  They only want to criticize the other, while throwing resources at their own pet projects.

The Left wants to help the poor, increase education and broaden health care.  The Right wants bigger armies, more bombs, and what I call 'toys for generals & admirals'.

Nothing costs as much as a war, and nothing is as useless.  The hypocrisy of the Right is that their pet projects produce nothing, while at least the Left promotes knowledge and health, which promote a better life for everyone.