This forum is the most combative, negative, divided on the site. There is not any area including the box that has the contention and anger that this does. A moderator cannot just stand on the sides doing nothing and there is too many topics and replies, too many personalities and conflicts to not have to dig in with the issues.
So? Politics and sports can be a lot of times. That does not mean you have to add to it is all I am saying.
@wallstreetcappers
This forum is the most combative, negative, divided on the site. There is not any area including the box that has the contention and anger that this does. A moderator cannot just stand on the sides doing nothing and there is too many topics and replies, too many personalities and conflicts to not have to dig in with the issues.
So? Politics and sports can be a lot of times. That does not mean you have to add to it is all I am saying.
Your DOOD remark lacked context, as usual. Your back handed insults and condescending digs are as always made and dismissed, you act innocent and OH I didnt mean that as if it didnt happen and you return right to it over and over. You insult people who are not providing a mountain of evidence when you are not the professor you are not the only say in how a discussion goes, your position is not empirical it is not perfect it is not the sole position in a discussion. No member is required to provide you a dissertation with defined variables to have a discussion with you.
It didn't. They were all exact quotes you used.
I have never insulted anyone the way that you constantly do by calling people 'morons', 'childish' etc.
I WILL question what people base their opinions on. If you cannot back it up with facts then it devolves to just a non-fact based opinion versus a fact-based opinion.
So, everyone has opinions. My point is that people are too easily swayed by emotions and media-driven narratives with no backing.
But I never insult people just because they are not aware of facts. I just point them out.
@wallstreetcappers
Your DOOD remark lacked context, as usual. Your back handed insults and condescending digs are as always made and dismissed, you act innocent and OH I didnt mean that as if it didnt happen and you return right to it over and over. You insult people who are not providing a mountain of evidence when you are not the professor you are not the only say in how a discussion goes, your position is not empirical it is not perfect it is not the sole position in a discussion. No member is required to provide you a dissertation with defined variables to have a discussion with you.
It didn't. They were all exact quotes you used.
I have never insulted anyone the way that you constantly do by calling people 'morons', 'childish' etc.
I WILL question what people base their opinions on. If you cannot back it up with facts then it devolves to just a non-fact based opinion versus a fact-based opinion.
So, everyone has opinions. My point is that people are too easily swayed by emotions and media-driven narratives with no backing.
But I never insult people just because they are not aware of facts. I just point them out.
You are welcome to your sidelines partisan views but it holds no value in reality. So thanks for the insight which you have no perspective or engagement. If one is criticizing as you regularly do it would be quite simple for the same measures be placed on you...but what good would that do?
@Raiders22
You are welcome to your sidelines partisan views but it holds no value in reality. So thanks for the insight which you have no perspective or engagement. If one is criticizing as you regularly do it would be quite simple for the same measures be placed on you...but what good would that do?
There is not ANY member who places the parameters of validity the way you do, I am not seeking your approval or validation of a position. It would be better if you stated your view and accepted others and seek to make good conversation and discussion. I would not be shocked if your approach to wearing people down in circular discussion going nowhere has impacts in your off line life, your style of data driven superiority is monotonous and uninspiring.
Again, it is circular because it is 'curious' when folks do not have a good reason, other than feelings, for something that they think is fact-based.
So, if folks get frustrated because they cannot back up their opinion adequately or counter opposing facts -- that is a sign it is not well thought out is all.
There are many, many subjects you can discuss without facts and data -- but those where you can and should use them, people should not be surprised when they are presented with them, or upset.
Like the man said: there are two things a smart man must be willing to do. Admit when he is wrong and adjust his opinion when presented with new evidence.
For example, you say you do no hate anyone. But your blatant vitriol for some people that you have never met like Trump; or disdain for someone like Musk -- these are things that are simply opinions. They do not have to be fact based. They can be entirely emotional because you do not like the wy they present themselves or treat people, etc.
HOWEVER, some things are entirely based on 'facts' like saying a wall costs trillions of dollars or that ARs are killing hundreds and thousands of people -- these are fact-based and should be adjusted accordingly.
It is obvious hyperbole to attempt to support a stance -- whether it is social concern or not. BOTH of those stances can be supported WITHOUT using that tactic.
These are the things you should adjust on, etc.
@wallstreetcappers
There is not ANY member who places the parameters of validity the way you do, I am not seeking your approval or validation of a position. It would be better if you stated your view and accepted others and seek to make good conversation and discussion. I would not be shocked if your approach to wearing people down in circular discussion going nowhere has impacts in your off line life, your style of data driven superiority is monotonous and uninspiring.
Again, it is circular because it is 'curious' when folks do not have a good reason, other than feelings, for something that they think is fact-based.
So, if folks get frustrated because they cannot back up their opinion adequately or counter opposing facts -- that is a sign it is not well thought out is all.
There are many, many subjects you can discuss without facts and data -- but those where you can and should use them, people should not be surprised when they are presented with them, or upset.
Like the man said: there are two things a smart man must be willing to do. Admit when he is wrong and adjust his opinion when presented with new evidence.
For example, you say you do no hate anyone. But your blatant vitriol for some people that you have never met like Trump; or disdain for someone like Musk -- these are things that are simply opinions. They do not have to be fact based. They can be entirely emotional because you do not like the wy they present themselves or treat people, etc.
HOWEVER, some things are entirely based on 'facts' like saying a wall costs trillions of dollars or that ARs are killing hundreds and thousands of people -- these are fact-based and should be adjusted accordingly.
It is obvious hyperbole to attempt to support a stance -- whether it is social concern or not. BOTH of those stances can be supported WITHOUT using that tactic.
@Raiders22 You are welcome to your sidelines partisan views but it holds no value in reality. So thanks for the insight which you have no perspective or engagement. If one is criticizing as you regularly do it would be quite simple for the same measures be placed on you...but what good would that do?
I am not criticizing you on everything. As I have told you before -- there are a lot of things I agree with you on. I simply do not usually go in and cheerlead folks about things I agree with.
Also it is not as much criticizing as questioning where EXACTLY you are coming from.
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@Raiders22 You are welcome to your sidelines partisan views but it holds no value in reality. So thanks for the insight which you have no perspective or engagement. If one is criticizing as you regularly do it would be quite simple for the same measures be placed on you...but what good would that do?
I am not criticizing you on everything. As I have told you before -- there are a lot of things I agree with you on. I simply do not usually go in and cheerlead folks about things I agree with.
Also it is not as much criticizing as questioning where EXACTLY you are coming from.
You are the circle king Raiders...nothing is ever accomplished because as a crutch you minimize, deflect and reassert your original flawed contention. Look two posts up you did the same thing you always do. Oh I can question someone and require that their opinion is backed with FACT...that is so subjective and dismissive it is annoying, but hey you know this Ive said it several times here and yet per your usual approach it is side step, divert and reassert. Your data and facts are not the only measure, your sources and views are not empirical or the only source and you might find superiority with selective data collection but that does not mean your position is correct or accurate. Data is not the only source of superiority, data is not fact and data is not reality. Data is collected outcomes which can be shaped and manipulated to form a narrative as we see with your data deluge. Even when someone has an opposing view to me I do not minimize their opinion, in fact most often I validate that and I do the same with you. I am not minimizing your opinion because you are entitled to it, I find flaws in your conclusions based solely on data to form your narrative. My replies to most others and you is that there are other variables to consider...so in the case of this topic you can data me to death and demand I submit a term paper for your approval in order to exist in a discussion, well that is your right but it does not make it right and it does not mean that you can claim superiority to solidify your viewpoint. There is much more to the topic of the AR discussion than solely data, especially when you manipulate the flawed data to form a flawed conclusion.
Notice that I never said you must give me more DATA and more "FACTS" I say that in quotes because facts to you are DATA BASED, that is not the only source of valid facts nor is it the only determining factor in making a decision or drawing a conclusion. A decision solely based on data manipulation and data dominance is flawed and yet that is the crutch you stand on to minimize and validate. My contention is there are other variables than who can google for manipulated data and who has the largest pile of data, even with less data the contention of social value and cost IS valid, it is not DATA based but that does not mean it is not valid or not FACT, I can make a conclusion of social value and social cost without having a dominance of data and statistical superiority. Even if the AR is number 50 in total deaths it does not mean that it is deserving to be in society and available for sale and use. I have stated this several times and yet you will revert back to the two crutches...WHY (why has been explained) and the demand for data dominance. Your discussions go nowhere because your path of discussion is to only demand stats and superiority or WHY...then minimize the WHY as some political partisan narrative when your TOTAL contention is political partisan narrative.
@Raiders22
You are the circle king Raiders...nothing is ever accomplished because as a crutch you minimize, deflect and reassert your original flawed contention. Look two posts up you did the same thing you always do. Oh I can question someone and require that their opinion is backed with FACT...that is so subjective and dismissive it is annoying, but hey you know this Ive said it several times here and yet per your usual approach it is side step, divert and reassert. Your data and facts are not the only measure, your sources and views are not empirical or the only source and you might find superiority with selective data collection but that does not mean your position is correct or accurate. Data is not the only source of superiority, data is not fact and data is not reality. Data is collected outcomes which can be shaped and manipulated to form a narrative as we see with your data deluge. Even when someone has an opposing view to me I do not minimize their opinion, in fact most often I validate that and I do the same with you. I am not minimizing your opinion because you are entitled to it, I find flaws in your conclusions based solely on data to form your narrative. My replies to most others and you is that there are other variables to consider...so in the case of this topic you can data me to death and demand I submit a term paper for your approval in order to exist in a discussion, well that is your right but it does not make it right and it does not mean that you can claim superiority to solidify your viewpoint. There is much more to the topic of the AR discussion than solely data, especially when you manipulate the flawed data to form a flawed conclusion.
Notice that I never said you must give me more DATA and more "FACTS" I say that in quotes because facts to you are DATA BASED, that is not the only source of valid facts nor is it the only determining factor in making a decision or drawing a conclusion. A decision solely based on data manipulation and data dominance is flawed and yet that is the crutch you stand on to minimize and validate. My contention is there are other variables than who can google for manipulated data and who has the largest pile of data, even with less data the contention of social value and cost IS valid, it is not DATA based but that does not mean it is not valid or not FACT, I can make a conclusion of social value and social cost without having a dominance of data and statistical superiority. Even if the AR is number 50 in total deaths it does not mean that it is deserving to be in society and available for sale and use. I have stated this several times and yet you will revert back to the two crutches...WHY (why has been explained) and the demand for data dominance. Your discussions go nowhere because your path of discussion is to only demand stats and superiority or WHY...then minimize the WHY as some political partisan narrative when your TOTAL contention is political partisan narrative.
Notice that I never said you must give me more DATA and more "FACTS" I say that in quotes because facts to you are DATA BASED, that is not the only source of valid facts nor is it the only determining factor in making a decision or drawing a conclusion. A decision solely based on data manipulation and data dominance is flawed and yet that is the crutch you stand on to minimize and validate.
Yes, but you are quick to demean someone when they disagree with your views and claim they are just supporting a narrative.
It works both ways if both of you are using just feelings. Nobody can be right; nobody can be wrong. So, why do you worry about their 'opinions' so much.
@wallstreetcappers
Notice that I never said you must give me more DATA and more "FACTS" I say that in quotes because facts to you are DATA BASED, that is not the only source of valid facts nor is it the only determining factor in making a decision or drawing a conclusion. A decision solely based on data manipulation and data dominance is flawed and yet that is the crutch you stand on to minimize and validate.
Yes, but you are quick to demean someone when they disagree with your views and claim they are just supporting a narrative.
It works both ways if both of you are using just feelings. Nobody can be right; nobody can be wrong. So, why do you worry about their 'opinions' so much.
FWIW you dont even recognize but 779 is just another circular retort...you said nothing new except the same schtick...you put down in the first sentence and then revert back to the same scheme you always use...it is curious dot dot dot good reason dot dot dot fact based dot dot dot data dot dot dot...its the same thing.
Curious is OK, you are not the only measure of a point of discussion, your data and facts are not empirical or the only source and your data and facts are not the universal conclusion to a topic or conversation. You are so fixated on data dominance you cannot even weigh the data to draw a non-dominance discussion or conclusion.
Oh I do not get frustrated from you I have and can go on hours, I just dont care for your empirical data dominance condescending attitude. You are the most closed minded and condescending poster here, but you for sure do not frustrate or dominate me even with your circular never ending discussion scheme.
@Raiders22
FWIW you dont even recognize but 779 is just another circular retort...you said nothing new except the same schtick...you put down in the first sentence and then revert back to the same scheme you always use...it is curious dot dot dot good reason dot dot dot fact based dot dot dot data dot dot dot...its the same thing.
Curious is OK, you are not the only measure of a point of discussion, your data and facts are not empirical or the only source and your data and facts are not the universal conclusion to a topic or conversation. You are so fixated on data dominance you cannot even weigh the data to draw a non-dominance discussion or conclusion.
Oh I do not get frustrated from you I have and can go on hours, I just dont care for your empirical data dominance condescending attitude. You are the most closed minded and condescending poster here, but you for sure do not frustrate or dominate me even with your circular never ending discussion scheme.
Nice side step in 784 with zero context as usual. Yeah the both ways argument works in context but you do not use context.
I demean someone who does not consider society in their decisions and when people force their at home views on society and in doing so takes away freedoms and rights that those who are different still deserve.
LOL nice try...
@Raiders22
Nice side step in 784 with zero context as usual. Yeah the both ways argument works in context but you do not use context.
I demean someone who does not consider society in their decisions and when people force their at home views on society and in doing so takes away freedoms and rights that those who are different still deserve.
@Raiders22 FWIW you dont even recognize but 779 is just another circular retort...you said nothing new except the same schtick...you put down in the first sentence and then revert back to the same scheme you always use...it is curious dot dot dot good reason dot dot dot fact based dot dot dot data dot dot dot...its the same thing. Curious is OK, you are not the only measure of a point of discussion, your data and facts are not empirical or the only source and your data and facts are not the universal conclusion to a topic or conversation. You are so fixated on data dominance you cannot even weigh the data to draw a non-dominance discussion or conclusion. Oh I do not get frustrated from you I have and can go on hours, I just dont care for your empirical data dominance condescending attitude. You are the most closed minded and condescending poster here, but you for sure do not frustrate or dominate me even with your circular never ending discussion scheme.
That is your opinion. My opinion is you cannot support a lot of your stances; they are just emotional. Then get frustrated when directly questioned about them.
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@Raiders22 FWIW you dont even recognize but 779 is just another circular retort...you said nothing new except the same schtick...you put down in the first sentence and then revert back to the same scheme you always use...it is curious dot dot dot good reason dot dot dot fact based dot dot dot data dot dot dot...its the same thing. Curious is OK, you are not the only measure of a point of discussion, your data and facts are not empirical or the only source and your data and facts are not the universal conclusion to a topic or conversation. You are so fixated on data dominance you cannot even weigh the data to draw a non-dominance discussion or conclusion. Oh I do not get frustrated from you I have and can go on hours, I just dont care for your empirical data dominance condescending attitude. You are the most closed minded and condescending poster here, but you for sure do not frustrate or dominate me even with your circular never ending discussion scheme.
That is your opinion. My opinion is you cannot support a lot of your stances; they are just emotional. Then get frustrated when directly questioned about them.
@Raiders22 Nice side step in 784 with zero context as usual. Yeah the both ways argument works in context but you do not use context. I demean someone who does not consider society in their decisions and when people force their at home views on society and in doing so takes away freedoms and rights that those who are different still deserve. LOL nice try...
And you think that is okay to do? Really?
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@Raiders22 Nice side step in 784 with zero context as usual. Yeah the both ways argument works in context but you do not use context. I demean someone who does not consider society in their decisions and when people force their at home views on society and in doing so takes away freedoms and rights that those who are different still deserve. LOL nice try...
Ha nice try again, you are the master of manipulation arent you?
I used your term because it was so outlandish I just went with it. I do not "demean" anyone, that was your term not mine. NICE TRY.
I call out someone who tries (as you do regularly) to force their home/personal view onto society when society is different and is not best served with a partisan narrow view.
You get an A for absurdity on that reply...but hey you should be smart enough to see why I replied as I did.
@Raiders22
Ha nice try again, you are the master of manipulation arent you?
I used your term because it was so outlandish I just went with it. I do not "demean" anyone, that was your term not mine. NICE TRY.
I call out someone who tries (as you do regularly) to force their home/personal view onto society when society is different and is not best served with a partisan narrow view.
You get an A for absurdity on that reply...but hey you should be smart enough to see why I replied as I did.
@wallstreetcappers I know it is not a political topic and I know you have said AZ is not your team. But you seem a bit more tied into them. Any thoughts on their opener. I usually do not like ‘Western’ timezone teams coming East on early starting games — especially, in the opener. But I think there is a lot of value with AZ. Especially, if the line works its way back to 7. I considered the OVER because BUF has some holes in the DEF from last year and AZ needs more work on DEF. But I really like the points with AZ. I am not a huge Murray fan. But with time and space he can light up certain defenses. I think getting MHJ is going to really help that OFF and Conner is always a threat. It is never a good idea to get into a shootout with Allen. But if anyone can do it out of the gate — I think Murray can do it, because AZ always seems to start well. That coupled with me thinking BUF has peaked and could fade this year — plus AZ is healthy and improving their OFF — makes me think there is good value with AZ and the points. You got any quick thoughts on this?
Good game --but for a couple of mistakes they could have won the game outright.
@Raiders22
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
@wallstreetcappers I know it is not a political topic and I know you have said AZ is not your team. But you seem a bit more tied into them. Any thoughts on their opener. I usually do not like ‘Western’ timezone teams coming East on early starting games — especially, in the opener. But I think there is a lot of value with AZ. Especially, if the line works its way back to 7. I considered the OVER because BUF has some holes in the DEF from last year and AZ needs more work on DEF. But I really like the points with AZ. I am not a huge Murray fan. But with time and space he can light up certain defenses. I think getting MHJ is going to really help that OFF and Conner is always a threat. It is never a good idea to get into a shootout with Allen. But if anyone can do it out of the gate — I think Murray can do it, because AZ always seems to start well. That coupled with me thinking BUF has peaked and could fade this year — plus AZ is healthy and improving their OFF — makes me think there is good value with AZ and the points. You got any quick thoughts on this?
Good game --but for a couple of mistakes they could have won the game outright.
@Raiders22 Ha nice try again, you are the master of manipulation arent you? I used your term because it was so outlandish I just went with it. I do not "demean" anyone, that was your term not mine. NICE TRY. I call out someone who tries (as you do regularly) to force their home/personal view onto society when society is different and is not best served with a partisan narrow view. You get an A for absurdity on that reply...but hey you should be smart enough to see why I replied as I did.
What do you call it when you call folks 'morons', 'childish', 'been drinking', etc.?
Not absurd at all to call that the very definition of demeaning.
NOT a nice try by you.
Also, not a good look for a moderator to do that either.
@wallstreetcappers
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
@Raiders22 Ha nice try again, you are the master of manipulation arent you? I used your term because it was so outlandish I just went with it. I do not "demean" anyone, that was your term not mine. NICE TRY. I call out someone who tries (as you do regularly) to force their home/personal view onto society when society is different and is not best served with a partisan narrow view. You get an A for absurdity on that reply...but hey you should be smart enough to see why I replied as I did.
What do you call it when you call folks 'morons', 'childish', 'been drinking', etc.?
Not absurd at all to call that the very definition of demeaning.
NOT a nice try by you.
Also, not a good look for a moderator to do that either.
Keep crying and deflecting Raiders, stay consistent. It would make for a more solid argument if you provided context and perspective but no that would mean you have no position to make. I do none of what you suggest and especially in the CONTEXT to which you are suggesting. If you want to try and attack someone, to pull a TNC put down try and be better, not be picking out words used without perspective and context. I think you do better trying to stuff slighted data down my throat than to throw silly shade like this.
@Raiders22
Keep crying and deflecting Raiders, stay consistent. It would make for a more solid argument if you provided context and perspective but no that would mean you have no position to make. I do none of what you suggest and especially in the CONTEXT to which you are suggesting. If you want to try and attack someone, to pull a TNC put down try and be better, not be picking out words used without perspective and context. I think you do better trying to stuff slighted data down my throat than to throw silly shade like this.
You are the one that took the conversation away from the main issue. You are the one that deflects and tries to avoid an issues when you are pinned down.
Just admit you were hyping it up and exaggerating.
We all admit there is a problem.
The issue is how and where to attack the problem.
That is why I say you and the Left and the Media are 'attacking' the wrong part of the problem.
I get that you have to start somewhere -- but why here?
@wallstreetcappers
You are the one that took the conversation away from the main issue. You are the one that deflects and tries to avoid an issues when you are pinned down.
Just admit you were hyping it up and exaggerating.
We all admit there is a problem.
The issue is how and where to attack the problem.
That is why I say you and the Left and the Media are 'attacking' the wrong part of the problem.
I get that you have to start somewhere -- but why here?
You used words out of context to try and form a narrative. You do this very regularly in most of the way you reply. You take liberties and slant because you do not have real truthful content to try and smear me. When you use blanket generalities that make no sense it is very obvious you are being partisan and biased, there is no way what you suggest happens. It is too bad you have to stoop to such petty levels to try and elevate a weak argument.
@Raiders22
You used words out of context to try and form a narrative. You do this very regularly in most of the way you reply. You take liberties and slant because you do not have real truthful content to try and smear me. When you use blanket generalities that make no sense it is very obvious you are being partisan and biased, there is no way what you suggest happens. It is too bad you have to stoop to such petty levels to try and elevate a weak argument.
Lets not play games like that, you provided junk data to craft a biased narrative, I said that there is much more to the situation than the blanket bulk data you provided. I also said that you cannot dismiss a concern because blanket data shades the situation, it does not matter the number of deaths relative to the total as a means of validating the existence of the weapon in circulation and production. The concerns of the "left and the media" exist no matter the number relative to the total of deaths.
Me suggesting there are more concerns than how many deaths the weapon is responsible for is not hyping or exaggerating, context is not hyping. I have stated the weapon has more social harm than it provides social good. That has been my position. The general population should not have access to weapons that can deliver the frequency and intensity of bullets that these do, there is no need for it. The demand that we can have any weapon we want is not a valid reason, the bad guys having them is not a valid reason, there is no reason why these weapons should have ever been created or allowed to exist in society. This is not hype or exaggeration.
Get it together and quit exaggerating your narrative, it is amusing you toss that out at me when you are doing exactly what you are claiming yourself.
@Raiders22
Lets not play games like that, you provided junk data to craft a biased narrative, I said that there is much more to the situation than the blanket bulk data you provided. I also said that you cannot dismiss a concern because blanket data shades the situation, it does not matter the number of deaths relative to the total as a means of validating the existence of the weapon in circulation and production. The concerns of the "left and the media" exist no matter the number relative to the total of deaths.
Me suggesting there are more concerns than how many deaths the weapon is responsible for is not hyping or exaggerating, context is not hyping. I have stated the weapon has more social harm than it provides social good. That has been my position. The general population should not have access to weapons that can deliver the frequency and intensity of bullets that these do, there is no need for it. The demand that we can have any weapon we want is not a valid reason, the bad guys having them is not a valid reason, there is no reason why these weapons should have ever been created or allowed to exist in society. This is not hype or exaggeration.
Get it together and quit exaggerating your narrative, it is amusing you toss that out at me when you are doing exactly what you are claiming yourself.
I have stated the weapon has more social harm than it provides social good. That has been my position. The general population should not have access to weapons that can deliver the frequency and intensity of bullets that these do, there is no need for it.
Yes, you keep saying that. How are you quantifying it? Let us assume ARs have never been invented or all of a sudden disappear. Step it though. What happens next?
Doe the 'social' bad that outweighs the social 'good' from the overall MAIN use(s) change for the better? If so, how and why and by how much?
Do you assume that never does a 'potential' AR user switch to the next available option?
Are you comparing it to overall handgun or rifles, or knives, etc.?
@wallstreetcappers
I have stated the weapon has more social harm than it provides social good. That has been my position. The general population should not have access to weapons that can deliver the frequency and intensity of bullets that these do, there is no need for it.
Yes, you keep saying that. How are you quantifying it? Let us assume ARs have never been invented or all of a sudden disappear. Step it though. What happens next?
Doe the 'social' bad that outweighs the social 'good' from the overall MAIN use(s) change for the better? If so, how and why and by how much?
Do you assume that never does a 'potential' AR user switch to the next available option?
Are you comparing it to overall handgun or rifles, or knives, etc.?
Get it together and quit exaggerating your narrative, it is amusing you toss that out at me when you are doing exactly what you are claiming yourself.
What are you referring to? I have not exaggerating anything. I do not have a narrative in this -- you do. You were the one that exaggerated from the very beginning. Just like you did with the cost of a wall.
I simply questioned your 'exaggeration'.
@wallstreetcappers
Get it together and quit exaggerating your narrative, it is amusing you toss that out at me when you are doing exactly what you are claiming yourself.
What are you referring to? I have not exaggerating anything. I do not have a narrative in this -- you do. You were the one that exaggerated from the very beginning. Just like you did with the cost of a wall.
Hot Forum Topics
