Collateral arrests of those who broke the law and finally got caught….Blackvegetable » 38 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ This graph not only tells the story of the Immigration Invasion Hoax, it strips the bark right off it.
MAGATs!
Can any of you describe what this graph makes abundantly clear?
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom #*******#ROG62 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Collateral arrests of those who broke the law and finally got caught….
repeat after me…
3,000,000,000…
He tried to reframe your 14% thread with that graph.ROG62 » 27 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Collateral arrests of those who broke the law and finally got caught….
repeat after me…
3,000,000,000…
I am not a MAGAT but the chart tells me they are going after anyone who entered illegally. They are enforcing immigration law.Blackvegetable » Today, 8:37 am » wrote: ↑ This graph not only tells the story of the Immigration Invasion Hoax, it strips the bark right off it.
MAGATs!
Can any of you describe what this graph makes abundantly clear?
You have made my point.Huey » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ I am not a MAGAT but the chart tells me they are going after anyone who entered illegally. They are enforcing immigration law.
Acknowledge you were answered.
Post the OP..Huey » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Oh, your point is you are happy they are enforcing immigration law. Great, we agree.
I don't read your OPs. If they are not TDS filled garbage, then it's your usual level 0 comments.Blackvegetable » Today, 8:43 am » wrote: ↑ My prediction
Not a single MAGAt will draw a meaningful conclusion from this graph.
@Vegas is unlikely to even try.....fearing complete demoralization.
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why. His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.
Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.
Natch....More of that "standing on principle" thing...Huey » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ I say this with a smile.....you ca **** off with your demands. My answer above stands.
**** your demands. You don't answer his questions, so he owes you nothing.
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why. His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.
Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.
work on the OP....you don't need to reframe my point.Huey » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Oh, your point is you are happy they are enforcing immigration law. Great, we agree.
I don't give a ****...