Anonymous wrote:The Trump supporters on here keep projecting feelings to "libs" based on what knowledge? The rantings and ravings of Tucker Carlson? Certainly NOT reality.

You don't understand what sanctuary ciy actually means.
You assume the outrage is NIMBY because your feeble brains can't understand that the actual outrage is against people used as pawns by the POTUS.

If all you have is your anti-lib fantasies, expect to be called liars and fools. Because you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about using human beings to “retaliate” and as “political retribution” to send a message to Democrats. Using the lives of other as cannon fire to teach a lesson to dear leader’s political enemies. Not to fix a situation, but to be purely spiteful with people.

Aren't sanctuary cities where they are SUPPOSED to be? Mont. Co. is one, according to the link upthread. How is it retaliatory to send newcomers to areas DESIGNED to attract them?

Exactly. Liberals are hypocrites.

That wasn't WHY they were designated sanctuary cities, but go ahead and send them. That will surely encourage another huge wave of refugees.

Ok - now we're trying to wordsmith.

Sanctuary cities are INDEED much more hospitable to newcomers. That's a FACT! The availability of resources necessary to provide a comfortable solution for these people is the reason why people come. an added benefit? the ability to track newcomers in case there's another Rockville HS rape incident . . .

EVENTUALLY, MOST will report to friendly areas, which translates into sanctuary cities.

So you can dance around the definition all you want, but liberals created the rules and now you have to learn to live with them.

And I do question what I added in bold. I may be stupid to make an ASSumption, but I'll do it anyway. Is that "threat" one that comes from fear? It appears as though you DON'T want to invite more of "them" in. Am I correct?

It's not a threat. Just a likely outcome.

Would you consider it a threat? Intentions don't matter, so I'm told. So it's really just how you'd interpret it, right?

lol

It's NOT a FUTURE outcome. It's already in place. That's what you don't seem to get.

You don't think that even LARGER groups of refugees will come if they know that Trump is welcoming them into the country?

DP. LARGER groups are now coming because they know that showing up with children will automatically guarantee them an asylum hearing - but more importantly, it will ensure they're released into the U.S. while they "wait" for that hearing. Asylum laws need to be changed and these groups need to wait on Mexico's side for their hearings - not simply be released into the U.S. It's mind-boggling that Mexico isn't stepping up and holding them there while they wait.

So we have already reached max possible immigrants now? Not possible to have more come to the border?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t sound like Stephen Miller was looking out for their well-being.

““It was basically an idea that Miller wanted that nobody else wanted to carry out,” said one congressional investigator who has spoken to one of the whistleblowers. “What happened here is that Stephen Miller called people at ICE, said if they’re going to cut funding, you’ve got to make sure you’re releasing people in Pelosi’s district and other congressional districts.” The investigator spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect the whistleblower.”

“It was during that mid-February standoff that one whistleblower went to Congress alleging that the White House was considering a plan to punish Democrats if they did not relent on ICE funding for beds. A second official independently came forward after that.

According to both, there were at least two versions of the plan being considered. One was to move migrants who were already in ICE detention to the districts of Democratic opponents. The second option was to bus migrants apprehended at the border to sanctuary cities, such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/white-house-proposed-releasing-immigrant-detainees-in-sanctuary-cities-targeting-political-foes/2019/04/11/72839bc8-5c68-11e9-9625-01d48d50ef75_story.html

These plans were not meant to help immigrants...they were meant to PUNISH US citizens.

You all keep using words like "punish." Its not a punishment if you want them to come. He knows you want them to come. The cities/state's own laws have declared that these people are a delight. Your assertion that this is a punishment is off when they've stated explicitly that these people are a joy.

Precisely. Funny that only now, when there's a real chance these immigrants could be living en masse in these cities, do liberals think it would be "punishment". So many examples of liberal hypocrisy, and this is one of the best. Nice work, liberals!

Hey morons. TRUMP THINKS IT IS A PUNISHMENT. That is the issue.

Yes, you have repeated this ad nauseum. But why would you care what Trump thinks? You hate the man. Instead, you should be rising to the occasion to prove to everyone how selfless and giving you are. Right?

Not that you really care since you just want to “stick it to the libs”, but I’ll say again...

I have an issue with his intentions. He intends to punish US citizens. He intends to “stick it to the libs”. It doesn’t matter if it’s a punishment or not. The POTUS is looking for ways to punish Dems because they disagreed with ICE funding. This is just one example of his vindictiveness.

His approval in NC is dropping. What if he withholds FEMA funding if they get another massive hurricane over that?

You probably wouldn’t have an issue with that but I would because I don’t think the POTUS should act like a vindictive, hateful a&$hole to any US citizens. But again that’s where we differ. You enjoy any chance to “stick it to the libs”. That is precisely why you put a vindictive, hateful a$$hole in the White House.

You obviously enjoy the phrase, “stick it to the libs” as you repeat it whenever you can. Rather than obsess over a stupid phrase, how about you acknowledge the utter hypocrisy in advocating for sanctuary cities and for “showing compassion” to illegal immigrants, but then being completely unwilling to consider a solution to where to put all of these “asylum seekers” who are currently being released into the country anyway?? What’s YOUR brilliant solution?

I've said it a few times...bring them to blue areas.

Can you answer the question:
His approval in NC is dropping. What if he withholds FEMA funding if they get another massive hurricane over that? Would you think that is OK?

Holy $hit - the NC/FEMA poster is at it again. First of all, sanctuary cities *are* blue areas - so what's the problem? You should be downright giddy over the possibility of illegal immigrants being brought to these cities. Secondly, Trump would not withhold FEMA funding simply because his approval is dropping. Why do you keep obsessing over this? MOVE ON.

So if he did would you be ok with that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is exactly who we're dealing with.

Looks like a Trump supporter to me. Rabid with worry about the immigrants! The immigrants! Build the wall! Build the wall!

You can slap your ridiculous text on there, but everyone knows who is really afraid.

Yes, we do. You're afraid these immigrants would actually be bused up to sanctuary cities. You're so afraid, you can't stand it. It's really puzzling, considering you've lectured the rest of us for years on how we're racists because we DON'T want illegal immigrants. Apparently, you've been the racists all along.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here you see typical liberal hypocrisy.

Surely, the best thing for these illegals and refugees is to encourage them to live in areas where they are welcome such as in sanctuary cities. I don't understand the consternation of liberals and those in blue states who have advocated supporting these people.

Unless of course the it is a case of welcoming refugees and other illegals for humanitarian reasons but not in my backyard!

Yep, you nailed it. Of course they’re welcome here, and anyone who disagrees is a “racist”. Wait, they’re actually coming??? NIMBY!!!
Typical.

This thread should be marked as one of the all-time greatest in this forum. Wild.

No kidding. We've got actual teachers here spewing lies. God knows how many students over the years!

DP. What are the "actual lies" in the PP's post? Please elucidate.

The crappy teacher lied about sanctuary cities. If you know what a sanctuary city us, then I shouldn't have had to elucidate that for you. If you don't know what a sanctuary city is, look it up. Someone has posted the Wikipedia entry upthread for you.

The teacher was absolutely telling the truth about what MoCo does for illegal immigrants - provides them support via schools, healthcare, etc. - when actual citizens aren't able to get the same services. Where's the lie? Do you live in MoCo? If not, then perhaps you need to take a little field trip and see for yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The President is giving you exactly what you said you welcomed. Remember the signs, the sermons we heard, the taxes we pay, the donations we make, the languages we learned, and hours of volunteering we give? Yeah - he's giving us exactly what we encouraged and support. This community can handle the needs far better than most.

+1,000
Don't forget the marches... these immigrants will have the red carpet rolled out for them! I actually think it's a very intriguing idea. Funny how liberals pay lip service to all their "good deed" and virtue signal whenever humanly possible. But when a real opportunity arrives to take in these immigrants, all of a sudden it's "punishment". Too funny.

TRUMP thinks it’s a punishment. Are you really that dense?

Who cares? YOU don't think it's a punishment, right? Or do you? Which is it?

this

It becomes an attack on Trump when he stated the obvious. While ICE isn't going to OFFICIALLY ship newcomers to sanctuary cities, that's where they're headed. Mo Co, for example, is growing in diversity.

Here are some stats:

The population of Montgomery County, MD is 44.5% White, 19.1% Hispanic, and 17.8% Black. 41% of the people in Montgomery County, MD speak a non-English language, and 84.8% are U.S. citizens.

Astute folks notice it in the schools first. Here is a demographic chart of the MCPS schools - https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/annualreport/2017/
Hispanics make up the largest group. Now, you'd need to examine the numbers more closely to see who's in ESOL classes, for example, in order to analyze funding and growth. And those numbers will change from level to level, as there may be more allocated for ES than for HS, for example, depending upon shifts in the population. But we do know that the group is growing, which makes it attractive for those seeking refuge in similar communities.



So while "Trump thinks it's a punishment," as you so eloquently stated, do YOU think it's a punishment, too? That's the question that's been asked again and again on these threads.

The growth is there, folks. Liberal (and mainly coastal) cities will attract newcomers for many reasons. So how is Trump's "punishment" any different from what's ALREADY BEEN in place for YEARS?

Well said. Of course, liberals can’t stand to be called out on their BS, so they’ll simply keep deflecting to “Trump’s trying to *punish* us!!” So funny.

Stop pushing your lies...no one is buying it.

On the contrary, the entire nation is watching you hypocrites trying desperately to walk back your positions on sanctuary cities. We are all watching you and will definitely remember in 2020. "You bought it, you own it" - isn't that what you're always saying?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s invade Mexico and the rest of Central America and make them part of the US. That will solve the illegal immigration problem immediately by default. After executing all the drug lords and corrupt policia, then let’s have all US citizens personally go help all the poor people we will have inheritied by requiring prior citizens to have a newly acquired Latino family live in their home and eat their food for free until they can find a legal job paying minimum wage. Any prior citizen’s family income over $75k will be forfeited to the US government and go into an “integration” fund for helping out under privileged people acquired as a result of our usurpation of Central America. Anyone complaining about this policy will be shot on site, partially to tamp down discord and partially to solve for overpopulation in our new welfare state. Sound good?

Here’s the real question, how many of the “horrified” posters on this forum are getting off their ass to go help an illegal immigrant detainee family in the next week? Yeah ... that’s what I thought. Hypocrites.

+1,000

+infinity

I spent over 10 years working in public health in Montgomery county in their maternity partnership program - a program for undocumented pregnant women. There were women there who were on their FOURTH and FIFTH pregnancies on the counties dime - all of their maternity, health and dental care taken care of by the county for a nominal fee ($10-20 per appointment). I need someone here to explain to me why this is ok - why are we paying for FIVE pregnancies for some of these people?

I was getting off my ass every damn day to help these people - but seeing this shit time after time is what turned me against illegal immigration. There are citizens of Montgomery county that aren’t “poor” enough to afford county services but not “rich” enough to pay for treatment/coverage. Yet the welcome mat is rolled out to those who entered this country illegally. Can one of you please please explain to me how this makes sense?

I expect crickets because I have asked this before and gotten no response.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about using human beings to “retaliate” and as “political retribution” to send a message to Democrats. Using the lives of other as cannon fire to teach a lesson to dear leader’s political enemies. Not to fix a situation, but to be purely spiteful with people.

Aren't sanctuary cities where they are SUPPOSED to be? Mont. Co. is one, according to the link upthread. How is it retaliatory to send newcomers to areas DESIGNED to attract them?

Exactly. Liberals are hypocrites.

That wasn't WHY they were designated sanctuary cities, but go ahead and send them. That will surely encourage another huge wave of refugees.

Ok - now we're trying to wordsmith.

Sanctuary cities are INDEED much more hospitable to newcomers. That's a FACT! The availability of resources necessary to provide a comfortable solution for these people is the reason why people come. an added benefit? the ability to track newcomers in case there's another Rockville HS rape incident . . .

EVENTUALLY, MOST will report to friendly areas, which translates into sanctuary cities.

So you can dance around the definition all you want, but liberals created the rules and now you have to learn to live with them.

And I do question what I added in bold. I may be stupid to make an ASSumption, but I'll do it anyway. Is that "threat" one that comes from fear? It appears as though you DON'T want to invite more of "them" in. Am I correct?

It's not a threat. Just a likely outcome.

Would you consider it a threat? Intentions don't matter, so I'm told. So it's really just how you'd interpret it, right?

lol

It's NOT a FUTURE outcome. It's already in place. That's what you don't seem to get.

You don't think that even LARGER groups of refugees will come if they know that Trump is welcoming them into the country?

DP. LARGER groups are now coming because they know that showing up with children will automatically guarantee them an asylum hearing - but more importantly, it will ensure they're released into the U.S. while they "wait" for that hearing. Asylum laws need to be changed and these groups need to wait on Mexico's side for their hearings - not simply be released into the U.S. It's mind-boggling that Mexico isn't stepping up and holding them there while they wait.

Anonymous wrote:Since I've learned that sanctuary cities aren't intended to provide actual sanctuary for illegal immigrants, that sounds like the perfect campaign promise for 2020 Dems to run on. That would be a winning strategy, and, more importantly, the virtuous thing to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t sound like Stephen Miller was looking out for their well-being.

““It was basically an idea that Miller wanted that nobody else wanted to carry out,” said one congressional investigator who has spoken to one of the whistleblowers. “What happened here is that Stephen Miller called people at ICE, said if they’re going to cut funding, you’ve got to make sure you’re releasing people in Pelosi’s district and other congressional districts.” The investigator spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect the whistleblower.”

“It was during that mid-February standoff that one whistleblower went to Congress alleging that the White House was considering a plan to punish Democrats if they did not relent on ICE funding for beds. A second official independently came forward after that.

According to both, there were at least two versions of the plan being considered. One was to move migrants who were already in ICE detention to the districts of Democratic opponents. The second option was to bus migrants apprehended at the border to sanctuary cities, such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/white-house-proposed-releasing-immigrant-detainees-in-sanctuary-cities-targeting-political-foes/2019/04/11/72839bc8-5c68-11e9-9625-01d48d50ef75_story.html

These plans were not meant to help immigrants...they were meant to PUNISH US citizens.

You all keep using words like "punish." Its not a punishment if you want them to come. He knows you want them to come. The cities/state's own laws have declared that these people are a delight. Your assertion that this is a punishment is off when they've stated explicitly that these people are a joy.

Precisely. Funny that only now, when there's a real chance these immigrants could be living en masse in these cities, do liberals think it would be "punishment". So many examples of liberal hypocrisy, and this is one of the best. Nice work, liberals!

Hey morons. TRUMP THINKS IT IS A PUNISHMENT. That is the issue.

Yes, you have repeated this ad nauseum. But why would you care what Trump thinks? You hate the man. Instead, you should be rising to the occasion to prove to everyone how selfless and giving you are. Right?

Not that you really care since you just want to “stick it to the libs”, but I’ll say again...

I have an issue with his intentions. He intends to punish US citizens. He intends to “stick it to the libs”. It doesn’t matter if it’s a punishment or not. The POTUS is looking for ways to punish Dems because they disagreed with ICE funding. This is just one example of his vindictiveness.

His approval in NC is dropping. What if he withholds FEMA funding if they get another massive hurricane over that?

You probably wouldn’t have an issue with that but I would because I don’t think the POTUS should act like a vindictive, hateful a&$hole to any US citizens. But again that’s where we differ. You enjoy any chance to “stick it to the libs”. That is precisely why you put a vindictive, hateful a$$hole in the White House.

You obviously enjoy the phrase, “stick it to the libs” as you repeat it whenever you can. Rather than obsess over a stupid phrase, how about you acknowledge the utter hypocrisy in advocating for sanctuary cities and for “showing compassion” to illegal immigrants, but then being completely unwilling to consider a solution to where to put all of these “asylum seekers” who are currently being released into the country anyway?? What’s YOUR brilliant solution?

I've said it a few times...bring them to blue areas.

Can you answer the question:
His approval in NC is dropping. What if he withholds FEMA funding if they get another massive hurricane over that? Would you think that is OK?

Holy $hit - the NC/FEMA poster is at it again. First of all, sanctuary cities *are* blue areas - so what's the problem? You should be downright giddy over the possibility of illegal immigrants being brought to these cities. Secondly, Trump would not withhold FEMA funding simply because his approval is dropping. Why do you keep obsessing over this? MOVE ON.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here you see typical liberal hypocrisy.

Surely, the best thing for these illegals and refugees is to encourage them to live in areas where they are welcome such as in sanctuary cities. I don't understand the consternation of liberals and those in blue states who have advocated supporting these people.

Unless of course the it is a case of welcoming refugees and other illegals for humanitarian reasons but not in my backyard!

Yep, you nailed it. Of course they’re welcome here, and anyone who disagrees is a “racist”. Wait, they’re actually coming??? NIMBY!!!
Typical.

This thread should be marked as one of the all-time greatest in this forum. Wild.

No kidding. We've got actual teachers here spewing lies. God knows how many students over the years!

DP. What are the "actual lies" in the PP's post? Please elucidate.

The crappy teacher lied about sanctuary cities. If you know what a sanctuary city us, then I shouldn't have had to elucidate that for you. If you don't know what a sanctuary city is, look it up. Someone has posted the Wikipedia entry upthread for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The President is giving you exactly what you said you welcomed. Remember the signs, the sermons we heard, the taxes we pay, the donations we make, the languages we learned, and hours of volunteering we give? Yeah - he's giving us exactly what we encouraged and support. This community can handle the needs far better than most.

+1,000
Don't forget the marches... these immigrants will have the red carpet rolled out for them! I actually think it's a very intriguing idea. Funny how liberals pay lip service to all their "good deed" and virtue signal whenever humanly possible. But when a real opportunity arrives to take in these immigrants, all of a sudden it's "punishment". Too funny.

TRUMP thinks it’s a punishment. Are you really that dense?

Who cares? YOU don't think it's a punishment, right? Or do you? Which is it?

this

It becomes an attack on Trump when he stated the obvious. While ICE isn't going to OFFICIALLY ship newcomers to sanctuary cities, that's where they're headed. Mo Co, for example, is growing in diversity.

Here are some stats:

The population of Montgomery County, MD is 44.5% White, 19.1% Hispanic, and 17.8% Black. 41% of the people in Montgomery County, MD speak a non-English language, and 84.8% are U.S. citizens.

Astute folks notice it in the schools first. Here is a demographic chart of the MCPS schools - https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/annualreport/2017/
Hispanics make up the largest group. Now, you'd need to examine the numbers more closely to see who's in ESOL classes, for example, in order to analyze funding and growth. And those numbers will change from level to level, as there may be more allocated for ES than for HS, for example, depending upon shifts in the population. But we do know that the group is growing, which makes it attractive for those seeking refuge in similar communities.



So while "Trump thinks it's a punishment," as you so eloquently stated, do YOU think it's a punishment, too? That's the question that's been asked again and again on these threads.

The growth is there, folks. Liberal (and mainly coastal) cities will attract newcomers for many reasons. So how is Trump's "punishment" any different from what's ALREADY BEEN in place for YEARS?

I have an issue with his intentions. He intends to punish US citizens. He intends to “stick it to the libs”. It doesn’t matter if it’s actually a punishment or not. The POTUS is looking for ways to punish Dems because they disagreed with ICE funding. This is just one example of his vindictiveness.

His approval in NC is dropping. What if he withholds FEMA funding if they get another massive hurricane over that?

You probably wouldn’t have an issue with that but I would because I don’t think the POTUS should act like a vindictive, hateful a&$hole to any US citizens. But again that’s where we differ. You enjoy any chance to “stick it to the libs”. That is precisely why you put a vindictive, hateful a$$hole in the White House.

Good grief. How many times have you posted these exact words?? No one cares that *you* have an issue with Trump's intentions. The fact is, it was not a bad suggestion to move people (who we're going to release into the country ANYWAY!!) to cities that brag about being "welcoming" to illegal immigrants. Win-win. They can deal with it. I'm not sure why you object, but it's pretty clear only because you detest Trump. Moving on...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is about using human beings to “retaliate” and as “political retribution” to send a message to Democrats. Using the lives of other as cannon fire to teach a lesson to dear leader’s political enemies. Not to fix a situation, but to be purely spiteful with people.

Aren't sanctuary cities where they are SUPPOSED to be? Mont. Co. is one, according to the link upthread. How is it retaliatory to send newcomers to areas DESIGNED to attract them?

Exactly. Liberals are hypocrites.

That wasn't WHY they were designated sanctuary cities, but go ahead and send them. That will surely encourage another huge wave of refugees.

Ok - now we're trying to wordsmith.

Sanctuary cities are INDEED much more hospitable to newcomers. That's a FACT! The availability of resources necessary to provide a comfortable solution for these people is the reason why people come. an added benefit? the ability to track newcomers in case there's another Rockville HS rape incident . . .

EVENTUALLY, MOST will report to friendly areas, which translates into sanctuary cities.

So you can dance around the definition all you want, but liberals created the rules and now you have to learn to live with them.

And I do question what I added in bold. I may be stupid to make an ASSumption, but I'll do it anyway. Is that "threat" one that comes from fear? It appears as though you DON'T want to invite more of "them" in. Am I correct?

It's not a threat. Just a likely outcome.

Would you consider it a threat? Intentions don't matter, so I'm told. So it's really just how you'd interpret it, right?

lol

It's NOT a FUTURE outcome. It's already in place. That's what you don't seem to get.

You don't think that even LARGER groups of refugees will come if they know that Trump is welcoming them into the country?

Spring and Fall caravans have been growing in size and frequency over the course of many, many years. These groups aren't coming because Trump wants to build a wall, they are coming because they know they are able to get services and a world class education from the moment they make it across the border. Widening 270, building new schools, building the purple line are all necessary to accommodate the explosion in economic and population growth unless someone picks up the can instead of kicking it until the next Election Day, then the next, and the next.

Trump picked up that can. Unyielding Democrats are tossing it back on the ground to kick it through the next election. Democrats, you want it, you got it. You own the can.

Once we reach the tipping point, we'll have no choice but to go to a VAT.

Well said, and very true. I'm not a huge fan of Trump, but I have to hand it to him. He does NOT shy away from disrupting the status quo. Good for him.

+1

I didn’t vote for him, but maybe this is what the country needs right now. Someone to shake up the status quo. Good for him.

He’s not currently well-liked, but who knows? Maybe someday history will look back and realize that he did what needed to be done at a time where other politicians just putzed around uselessly.

Anonymous wrote:If this thread doesn't outright prove what liars liberals are, I don't know what does. Misdirection, misinformation, attributing their own bad behavior to others...blah blah blah. So steeped in their own shite they can't smell it anymore.