Originally posted by: David Miller
For retards? I see that YOU responded...
Yep. Doesn't mean he's part of your audience. It means that he's part of the group that laughs at you--the participants in this forum.
MAGOO!
Originally posted by: David Miller
For retards? I see that YOU responded...
Yep. Doesn't mean he's part of your audience. It means that he's part of the group that laughs at you--the participants in this forum.
MAGOO!
Stupid kevin; the story is true from the NY Times
data obtained by The NY Times showed that over the last two years, the agency (HHS) could not reach more than 85,000 children. Overall, the agency lost immediate contact with a third of migrant children.
Originally posted by: tom
Stupid kevin; the story is true from the NY Times
data obtained by The NY Times showed that over the last two years, the agency (HHS) could not reach more than 85,000 children. Overall, the agency lost immediate contact with a third of migrant children.
Stupid Tommie-poo, the Times didn't say those children had been "trafficked."
That's your shtick, taking something that's nominally true on its surface and wildly misinterpreting it.
I never said they were trafficked. I pointed out that The NY Times said they are unaccounted for when HHS called their sponsors.
Originally posted by: tom
I never said they were trafficked. I pointed out that The NY Times said they are unaccounted for when HHS called their sponsors.
And...so fucking what?
Yes, it was Davey Dog who used that ridiculously inaccurate term. You climbed on the idiot wagon.
Go back into your hole, stupid Tommie-poo.
