Wall not up

[Jimjam]

Sorry for referencing so many pages ago, but I have to call in to question the efficacy of Hadrians wall as a 'wall that works ... still working'.

Firstly, as an Englishman living in England, I must regretfully report that unfortunately two of my colleagues in the department are indeed Scottish (real Scottish, not the fake American stuff).

Secondly Hadrians wall was a series of linked observation posts designed as a military defence, sending a message of Roman presence and power, designating the extreme northern border of the Empire, not a migrationary barrier. The common folk were free to peacefully pass the border as they pleased. Trade brought wealth, the Romans liked that.

[mmmroo]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Kadafi was playing with fire for not using the dollar to trade oil. China knows what it's doing in Africa.

Gaddafi sure was! bingo bro! He was not the first to fall prey to the USA, South America got hit hard.

[mmmroo]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sorry for referencing so many pages ago, but I have to call in to question the efficacy of Hadrians wall as a 'wall that works ... still working'.

Firstly, as an Englishman living in England, I must regretfully report that unfortunately two of my colleagues in the department are indeed Scottish (real Scottish, not the fake American stuff).

Secondly Hadrians wall was a series of linked observation posts designed as a military defence, sending a message of Roman presence and power, designating the extreme northern border of the Empire, not a migrationary barrier. The common folk were free to peacefully pass the border as they pleased. Trade brought wealth, the Romans liked that.

I stand corrected thank you sir.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by mmmroo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Gaddafi sure was! bingo bro! He was not the first to fall prey to the USA, South America got hit hard.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[ScaringChildren]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here's the thing: in an intellectually honest debate you're not allowed to write ... well, pretty much anything you write in your posts.

You're not allowed to dismiss arguments just by declaring so, or by blaming some unrelated fact. For instance, "So you have 'testimony' from a corrupt Mexican guard that works for the cartel." ... yes, by definition any guard testifying against El Chapo will be a corrupt guard ... but only a true idiot (or in your case, a dishonest debater) would argue that we should ignore everything every corrupt person in history has ever said as a result as a result of their corruption.

You're also not allowed to ignore obviously self-evident points because there's no "evidence", eg. it's harder to bribe a guard to let bombs through than drugs ("And this 'source' says Israeli guards are harder to bribe? Dude, it's obvious you're pulling this info out of your ass.") There's no need for evidence, only logic: if some drugs get through the border (virtually) no one cares, and there's not going to be some sort of inquest to find out which guard let the drugs through. But if bombs get through lots of people are going to care, and there absolutely will be an investigation into the guards, so logically any guard who wants to keep their job isn't going to let bombs through.

And in an intellectually honest debate you're definitely not allowed to go "neener neener I'm right and you're wrong" like a five-year old ("I don't know if you're trolling or actually believe your argument is sound. You really are a dumb motherfucker lol").

In other words, intellectually honest people don't just debate to prove how big their e-penis is, they do so to genuinely convince the other side that their position is correct, and the only way to truly convince an intelligent person of anything is with intellectually honest arguments. But you don't care about convincing anyone of anything, because you don't believe in anything, you're just a troll trying to score forum points in a forum that doesn't have points.

I'll happily call out your bullshit from time to time, but I'm not going to pretend to have a debate with you when you're not willing to devote the slightest shred of intellectual integrity to what you write.

That was many paragraphs of pure, nonsense.

"Intellectually honest debates" don't contain anecdotal evidence.

A corrupt border guard testifying against El Chapo can tell you about HIS experience and possibly the immediate region, but you're saying this one guard is an authority on walls and border security around the globe.

You ASSUME Israeli guards are harder to bribe. You pulled that out of your ass.

You ASSUME US border guards don't have to deal with dangerous terrorist threats on the border.

This is how you arrogantly pull your data together.

Give me SOMETHING that supports Israeli guards are harder to bribe than American guards. And no, that's not common knowledge. The truth can be either or. Probably no one knows the true answer.

Also, how the hell do corrupt guards equal walls not working?

If anything, a wall is protection against corrupt guards.

Because you could pay a guard, but how is he going to get you over the wall? A guard catapult?

Seriously dude.

You are insanely retarded.

I really mean it with you. I think there's something wrong with you. Were you dropped on your head? Did you eat paint chips as a kid?

[Bones]

good thread so far keep it up guys

and /g incoming "a wall"

[mmmroo]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Another hot head leader? surprised are you? If this is true doubt it was serious since Gadaffi's army was miniscule. I am not in love with Gadaffi. But i believe in there being free county's that don't need to be fearing military invasions for no reason.

[Jimjam]

Just say to the deputy "I am Juan with the wall, holmes!" and he'll ring you through.

[nostalgiaquest]

Does anyone really think building a wall...sorry, a barrier...will have an affect on the flow of drugs from Mexico?

You're dealing with cartels that have literally infinite money and there's an infinite demand here in America. Supply and demand, capitalism at its finest.

And still no one can explain exactly how Mexico is going to pay for it, even indirectly.

The USMCA, which has yet to be ratified by Congress, doesn’t differ from NAFTA in any way that would result in a substantial revenue increase. The new provisions added deal mostly with automobile manufacturing, intellectual property rights and access to Canadian dairy, which Trump has tweeted about at length. None of these put money into the US treasury. Both NAFTA and the USMCA charge no tariffs on trade with Canada and Mexico, just as was the case with NAFTA.

I've asked this multiple times. How is Mexico paying for this wall?

Not to mention that to complete this project will take years, if it ever reaches completion, Even if Trump wins a second term, i doubt that the wall would be completed before he was out of office. I've worked on multiple multi-million dollar military construction projects, and if it actually got completed without going way over budget and behind schedule I'd be incredibly surprised.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by Bones [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

good thread so far keep it up guys

and /g incoming "a wall"

https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/statu...34750578929664