Does anybody at the IRS care? That's the better question to ask in my opinion. If nobody at the IRS cares, then maybe they have a good reason and can explain it. Has anyone asked them?
SteveK said... Does anybody at the IRS care? That's the better question to ask in my opinion. If nobody at the IRS cares, then maybe they have a good reason and can explain it. Has anyone asked them?
why would you think they don't care Because he hasn't been arrested?obviously he's hiding something. You think if you had 20 billion you keep the IRS off your back? why do you think he ran for president?
Arnold J. Toynbee,* the history of ideas man, wrote an essay on Jesus Christ and history in which he argued that Christianity was responsible for the idea of progress in history.("Christainty and the problem of history" in God, History and Historians, modern Christian views of History edt C.T. McIntire) Pagan mythology had the eternal return. The eternal return mirrored the cycles of the four seasons and featured the gods always doing the same things over and over in cycles.
Political revolution aside, I would love to divert conversation away from sports, as I struggle to imagine anything more useless that dominates so much attention. Celebrity gossip is about the only thing worse.
Careful there, bmiller. Wars have been fought for less!
I mostly agree with Legion here, except when it comes to baseball. I could gladly talk baseball all day. I am theologically certain that Heaven has its equivalent of the American and National Leagues (and no designated hitter rule, that spawn of satan!).
See above. Not directly related to the OP, but not far, as it has to do with Trump.
Dear Trumpists, or more lightly, anyone who think that Trump and Republicans are doing great: can you explain to me what your position is regarding Trump's tax cuts, and what government services will need to be cut to compensate?
Just in case anyone here thought I was being hyperbolic in the sense that Jesus told us to hate our parents or gouge out our eyes (both of which were semitic exaggeration to make a point, and not to be taken literally), I was being dead serious in advocating open borders a while back. In fact, I advocate no borders at all. They should come down all over the world, and people should be free to move to and live wherever they want.
I say this because the Trump administration is preparing to once again rip families apart at the southern border. There is no justification for such a policy. So I am proactively condemning it. And when people (thinking they've come up with some sort of killer comeback) say, "Well, you're just in favor of open borders" I can answer, "Damn straight I am! Open 'em up!"
In fact, I advocate no borders at all. They should come down all over the world, and people should be free to move to and live wherever they want.
Then you either get into a situation where people will flood the areas offering the most welfare programs and will crush them into oblivion, or you'll have a homogenous one world government headed by Donald J Trump! Which would you prefer? :)
Legion, even though I'm not on favor of literally open borders, your comment implies 1 gross misconception: it's easy for people to move.
In reality, it isn't. But Republicans/Trumpists don't care about what's actually true, so you guys keep making comments like yours. I may disagree with Bob's position, but at least it's not bases on falsehoods, like yours.
I see that smiley faces are not sufficient to indicate lack of seriousness, will try to remember that in the future.
Also, I don't like the Republican Party (but in a world where I despise the only viable alternative...) and would not call myself a Republican. And I did not vote for Trump and will not vote for him in 2020 most likely, either, unless his opponent is bad enough that I feel a vote for Trump is a vote against the opponent.
Open borders is a "right-wing" idea according to Bernie:
“What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs."
Right wing, left wing, who cares? How about we all stop worrying about who came up with an idea first, and concentrate on whether the idea has merit, is practical, is superior to a competing idea, and (most of all) promotes justice?
I was being dead serious in advocating open borders a while back. In fact, I advocate no borders at all. They should come down all over the world, and people should be free to move to and live wherever they want.
You keep saying this but I don't believe you because you don't do this in your own life. Is this just for other people? Tell us why you don't open your house up to anyone who wants to live there? Remove the locks on the doors. Put up a sign and let people from the streets wander in/out as they choose.
Letting someone stay there for a few days and then asking them to leave doesn't fit your 'dead serious' statement. Why don't you lead the way and show us how it's done?
Besides, I do not own a house*, so I have no place to let people live in.
* I actually own very little of anything. Mostly, my books and my clothes. Plus my telescope. My savings account is near zero because, although I do receive a pension, I give nearly all of it away each month. (I gave 1400 dollars away just this morning.)
They are not different in the sense I'm talking about. Many of the same reasons for having a controlled border apply to both your home and your country. You don't allow anyone to wander into your home whenever they want and neither does your country.
This is why I don’t believe you are deadly serious. You decided to take up residence within what you believe to be the town square and you are enforcing a border. If you really believed it was a town square you wouldn’t be enforcing a border. Why don’t you stop doing that?
Sensible people make every effort to attract people to public spaces (such as a town square), not to shut them out.
You are shutting people out of "your area" of the public space. You are controlling the border around your space (aka, your home) that other people should have equal access to. Why?
Where is the line between open borders and abolishing border security? Thousands upon thousands of arrests, drug busts, etc happen on an annual basis. We just ignore that? If not, what's the difference?
There will be always be a border around some physical space: nation, region, city, neighborhood, home, individual space. That border is where your 'tribe' -your people group- has the autonomy and the freedom to make rules and to determine who they want to associate with and let inside. Abolish a national border by force and all you will succeed in accomplishing is forcing people to establish a new border at some other location.
Why do you continue to make no distinction between public and private spaces? They are not just differences in degree but in kind, and different rules apply to each.
You don't expect to play baseball using the rules of football, do you? Yet you appear to advocate treating public and private spaces as though there was no distinction between them.
Why do you continue to make no distinction between public and private spaces? They are not just differences in degree but in kind, and different rules apply to each.
I'm doing that because you said "A country is not property. It's more analogous to a town square or a village green.".
If the entire country is a town square, open to everyone, then there can be no private spaces. If you want to allow private spaces within a public space, then you are advocating for the existence of controlled borders where different rules apply to different spaces. We have that situation now in the form of different countries. The USA is a private space in the sense that outsiders cannot just wander into our private space whenever they want, like they could if it were a town square.
We're on equal footing in that respect. What you are saying makes no sense to me at all. I hear you saying that you want to treat private and public spaces differently but you also want no borders at all. You say every country is like a town square, thus all land mass is like a town square, but you also think some of that land mass is not part of the town square. From where I sit, you're a living breathing contradiction.
Fortunately baseball starts again on Tuesday. Time better spent.
That's a very good analogy, Hugo. The laws in Alabama might be different in some details than here in Maryland, but nothing is stopping me from moving to Alabama, or someone from Alabama from moving to Maryland.
Consider the Great Migration as an example of what I'd love to see possible at the international level. And contrary to Steve's confusion, no was asking northerners to let southern blacks into their private homes - just into their very public cities.
So yes, if that Central American "convoy" does arrive at our southern border, the only just and humane response ought to be "Welcome aboard! Glad to see you."
What about states within the USA? Open borders could be just like that but at the country level. Sounds like that's what Bob is describing...
So nothing that resembles a town square. If only Starhopper didn't lead me astray.
State borders successfully function the way they do because the people within the states are unified (for now) in many ways. Language, values, culture and religion are a few of those key unifying elements.
Opening the borders to people that have allegiances elsewhere is a stupid idea because it undermines the unity and creates division that leads to all kinds of problems. Race wars, culture wars, religious wars. etc. The country border serves to keep those people out.
"So yes, if that Central American "convoy" does arrive at our southern border, the only just and humane response ought to be "Welcome aboard! Glad to see you."
No. The just and humane response is to preserve the unity for the benefit of your fellow countrymen the best you can. The just and humane response is implement an extreme vetting process that weeds certain people out. Blindly letting people in a-la "open borders" is the stupidest of stupid ideas ever to be imagined.
Ya I don't think complete open borders are realistic but asking for extreme vetting sounds detached from the current reality though. It's not like it easy to immigrate to the USA right now... even just visiting can be a hassle for many who have friends and family here.
So even though open borders sound hyperbolic, it is in the right direction I believe. Advanced economies have a lot more to gain than to lose by opening up to immigration, while making sure current citizens have good chances of flourishing too. They aren't mutually exclusive at all for rich countries.
Arguing with atheists I couldn't resist making a strawman argument that was better than the one I had answered beating them both: Does it matter what the majority believe?">
"So yes, if that Central American "convoy" does arrive at our southern border, the only just and humane response ought to be "Welcome aboard! Glad to see you."
No. The just and humane response is to preserve the unity for the benefit of your fellow countrymen the best you can. The just and humane response is implement an extreme vetting process that weeds certain people out. Blindly letting people in a-la "open borders" is the stupidest of stupid ideas ever to be imagined.
I an not for just open boarders, I would go back to Obama's system, not because it's perfect but it's closer to being set up. Pervade for dreamers and allow in convey people who sought aslym but with vetting, However keep their kids with them,
For you, perhaps it is hyperbolic. Starhopper, on the other hand, has said he is not being hyperbolic about it. His deadly serious attitude is reckless and irresponsible. I wouldn't trust Starhopper to protect lives.
Hmm... As a DoD civilian, I was awarded a military commendation by the Royal Air Force after the 2nd Gulf War for verifiably saving the lives of 27 British airmen (in a very nice ceremony in Southampton) during air combat operations over southern Iraq. It's hanging on my wall right now.
I am also credited with preventing the deaths of hundreds of American servicemen in Iraq by alerting them to the presence of IEDs in their vicinity.
If you tell me you want to blindly, recklessly, irresponsibly let people in then you cannot be trusted. Your past accomplishments have nothing to do with it.
Never forget - the Holy Family were refugees, crossing without documentation (possibly as part of a "caravan"?) into Egypt, to escape tyranny and violence back home.
It will take a long time for all these asylum seekers to show up at a legal point of entry and then be processed. Yep, no way they will try to cross illegally or force their way in like they did in Mexico - without seeking asylum in Mexico, as I believe they are supposed to do. Yep, all will go smoothly. Right in time for the midterms, no less.
bmiller said... The Holy Family fled the Massacre of the Innocents. Known in modern times as the Democratic Party's favorite platform plank.
If I were to choose one political party to engage in policies not respectful of the lives of two-year-olds, it would be the one that even now is saying we need cuts in social welfare programs, aka the Republicans.
And like the person who brought up the Holy Family legally traveling to Egypt and comparing it to the current leftist organized and paid for protest march.
If you've decided to go so far off-road you don't have any room to complain.
But what about Hillary's crimes!?!
ReplyDeleteThat's what we always wondered.
ReplyDeleteDoes anybody at the IRS care? That's the better question to ask in my opinion. If nobody at the IRS cares, then maybe they have a good reason and can explain it. Has anyone asked them?
ReplyDeleteSteveK said...
ReplyDeleteDoes anybody at the IRS care? That's the better question to ask in my opinion. If nobody at the IRS cares, then maybe they have a good reason and can explain it. Has anyone asked them?
why would you think they don't care Because he hasn't been arrested?obviously he's hiding something. You think if you had 20 billion you keep the IRS off your back? why do you think he ran for president?
ReplyDeleteBlogger Hugo Pelland said...
But what about Hillary's crimes!?!
which one? Being an intelligent woman or being a Democrat?
Good question, I don't know which one is worse, but it can't be ignored any longer!
ReplyDeleteSad as it is to say, I think a large proportion (perhaps even a majority) of Americans actually admire a tax cheat. Wish they could do it themselves.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteArnold J. Toynbee,* the history of ideas man, wrote an essay on Jesus Christ and history in which he argued that Christianity was responsible for the idea of progress in history.("Christainty and the problem of history" in God, History and Historians, modern Christian views of History edt C.T. McIntire) Pagan mythology had the eternal return. The eternal return mirrored the cycles of the four seasons and featured the gods always doing the same things over and over in cycles.
Metacrcok's blog
btw I have a friend who works at the IRS ecares
ReplyDeleteDon't be shy. Say it in style!
ReplyDeleteI much prefer this t-shirt!
ReplyDeletePolitical revolution aside, I would love to divert conversation away from sports, as I struggle to imagine anything more useless that dominates so much attention. Celebrity gossip is about the only thing worse.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry. English football isn't really a sport :-)
ReplyDelete"English football isn't really a sport."
ReplyDeleteCareful there, bmiller. Wars have been fought for less!
I mostly agree with Legion here, except when it comes to baseball. I could gladly talk baseball all day. I am theologically certain that Heaven has its equivalent of the American and National Leagues (and no designated hitter rule, that spawn of satan!).
Careful there, bmiller. Wars have been fought for less!
ReplyDeleteThings were getting too boring. Time to start something.
I am theologically certain that Heaven has its equivalent of the American and National Leagues (and no designated hitter rule, that spawn of satan!).
Maybe you will meet Orange Man there
https://youtu.be/SclPxRRYk48
ReplyDeleteSee above. Not directly related to the OP, but not far, as it has to do with Trump.
Dear Trumpists, or more lightly, anyone who think that Trump and Republicans are doing great: can you explain to me what your position is regarding Trump's tax cuts, and what government services will need to be cut to compensate?
Why is this the right thing to do?
Wittern during Alabaman senate race
ReplyDeleteChristians wake up
ReplyDeletefactually quantifiable harms already accrued as result of Trump's attack on civilization
What Trump Costs us in Live
Remember to vote November 7th!
ReplyDeleteA date that will live in infamy!
ReplyDeleteJust in case anyone here thought I was being hyperbolic in the sense that Jesus told us to hate our parents or gouge out our eyes (both of which were semitic exaggeration to make a point, and not to be taken literally), I was being dead serious in advocating open borders a while back. In fact, I advocate no borders at all. They should come down all over the world, and people should be free to move to and live wherever they want.
ReplyDeleteI say this because the Trump administration is preparing to once again rip families apart at the southern border. There is no justification for such a policy. So I am proactively condemning it. And when people (thinking they've come up with some sort of killer comeback) say, "Well, you're just in favor of open borders" I can answer, "Damn straight I am! Open 'em up!"
I think I saw Victor in the crowd at the Trump rally in Phoenix!
ReplyDeleteGood for him! Doing field research, no doubt.
ReplyDeleteHad a MAGA hat on. Guess he had to #Walkaway
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I advocate no borders at all. They should come down all over the world, and people should be free to move to and live wherever they want.
ReplyDeleteThen you either get into a situation where people will flood the areas offering the most welfare programs and will crush them into oblivion, or you'll have a homogenous one world government headed by Donald J Trump! Which would you prefer? :)
Legion, even though I'm not on favor of literally open borders, your comment implies 1 gross misconception: it's easy for people to move.
ReplyDeleteIn reality, it isn't. But Republicans/Trumpists don't care about what's actually true, so you guys keep making comments like yours. I may disagree with Bob's position, but at least it's not bases on falsehoods, like yours.
I see that smiley faces are not sufficient to indicate lack of seriousness, will try to remember that in the future.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't like the Republican Party (but in a world where I despise the only viable alternative...) and would not call myself a Republican. And I did not vote for Trump and will not vote for him in 2020 most likely, either, unless his opponent is bad enough that I feel a vote for Trump is a vote against the opponent.
"I see that smiley faces are not sufficient to indicate lack of seriousness"
ReplyDeleteYou need to make them BOLD. (I actually did not even notice the emoticon in your posting. But I did realise you were being humorous.)
Open borders is a "right-wing" idea according to Bernie:
ReplyDelete“What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs."
Right wing, left wing, who cares? How about we all stop worrying about who came up with an idea first, and concentrate on whether the idea has merit, is practical, is superior to a competing idea, and (most of all) promotes justice?
ReplyDeleteI was being dead serious in advocating open borders a while back. In fact, I advocate no borders at all. They should come down all over the world, and people should be free to move to and live wherever they want.
ReplyDeleteYou keep saying this but I don't believe you because you don't do this in your own life. Is this just for other people? Tell us why you don't open your house up to anyone who wants to live there? Remove the locks on the doors. Put up a sign and let people from the streets wander in/out as they choose.
Letting someone stay there for a few days and then asking them to leave doesn't fit your 'dead serious' statement. Why don't you lead the way and show us how it's done?
Apples and oranges, SteveK.
ReplyDeleteCountries are not houses.
Besides, I do not own a house*, so I have no place to let people live in.
* I actually own very little of anything. Mostly, my books and my clothes. Plus my telescope. My savings account is near zero because, although I do receive a pension, I give nearly all of it away each month. (I gave 1400 dollars away just this morning.)
Legion,
ReplyDeleteI know you weren't entirely serious, but humor still implies certain facts and opinions.
They are not different in the sense I'm talking about. Many of the same reasons for having a controlled border apply to both your home and your country. You don't allow anyone to wander into your home whenever they want and neither does your country.
ReplyDeleteIt's a very bad analogy. A country is not property. It's more analogous to a town square or a village green.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I don’t believe you are deadly serious. You decided to take up residence within what you believe to be the town square and you are enforcing a border. If you really believed it was a town square you wouldn’t be enforcing a border. Why don’t you stop doing that?
ReplyDeleteHuh? I lost you there. Sensible people make every effort to attract people to public spaces (such as a town square), not to shut them out.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was time to change my picture. This one is of Gus Grissom taking off for the 2nd Mercury Redstone mission.
ReplyDeleteSensible people make every effort to attract people to public spaces (such as a town square), not to shut them out.
ReplyDeleteMoors. Spain. Not sensible for Spain.
Sensible people make every effort to attract people to public spaces (such as a town square), not to shut them out.
ReplyDeleteYou are shutting people out of "your area" of the public space. You are controlling the border around your space (aka, your home) that other people should have equal access to. Why?
Where is the line between open borders and abolishing border security? Thousands upon thousands of arrests, drug busts, etc happen on an annual basis. We just ignore that? If not, what's the difference?
ReplyDeleteThere will be always be a border around some physical space: nation, region, city, neighborhood, home, individual space. That border is where your 'tribe' -your people group- has the autonomy and the freedom to make rules and to determine who they want to associate with and let inside. Abolish a national border by force and all you will succeed in accomplishing is forcing people to establish a new border at some other location.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you continue to make no distinction between public and private spaces? They are not just differences in degree but in kind, and different rules apply to each.
You don't expect to play baseball using the rules of football, do you? Yet you appear to advocate treating public and private spaces as though there was no distinction between them.
Why do you continue to make no distinction between public and private spaces? They are not just differences in degree but in kind, and different rules apply to each.
ReplyDeleteI'm doing that because you said "A country is not property. It's more analogous to a town square or a village green.".
If the entire country is a town square, open to everyone, then there can be no private spaces. If you want to allow private spaces within a public space, then you are advocating for the existence of controlled borders where different rules apply to different spaces. We have that situation now in the form of different countries. The USA is a private space in the sense that outsiders cannot just wander into our private space whenever they want, like they could if it were a town square.
I'm sorry, but what you have just written doesn't even make grammatical sense. It is semantically null.
ReplyDeleteWe're on equal footing in that respect. What you are saying makes no sense to me at all. I hear you saying that you want to treat private and public spaces differently but you also want no borders at all. You say every country is like a town square, thus all land mass is like a town square, but you also think some of that land mass is not part of the town square. From where I sit, you're a living breathing contradiction.
ReplyDeleteFortunately baseball starts again on Tuesday. Time better spent.
What about states within the USA? Open borders could be just like that but at the country level. Sounds like that's what Bob is describing...
ReplyDeleteThat's a very good analogy, Hugo. The laws in Alabama might be different in some details than here in Maryland, but nothing is stopping me from moving to Alabama, or someone from Alabama from moving to Maryland.
ReplyDeleteConsider the Great Migration as an example of what I'd love to see possible at the international level. And contrary to Steve's confusion, no was asking northerners to let southern blacks into their private homes - just into their very public cities.
So yes, if that Central American "convoy" does arrive at our southern border, the only just and humane response ought to be "Welcome aboard! Glad to see you."
ReplyDeleteWhat about states within the USA? Open borders could be just like that but at the country level. Sounds like that's what Bob is describing...
ReplyDeleteSo nothing that resembles a town square. If only Starhopper didn't lead me astray.
State borders successfully function the way they do because the people within the states are unified (for now) in many ways. Language, values, culture and religion are a few of those key unifying elements.
Opening the borders to people that have allegiances elsewhere is a stupid idea because it undermines the unity and creates division that leads to all kinds of problems. Race wars, culture wars, religious wars. etc. The country border serves to keep those people out.
"So yes, if that Central American "convoy" does arrive at our southern border, the only just and humane response ought to be "Welcome aboard! Glad to see you."
ReplyDeleteNo. The just and humane response is to preserve the unity for the benefit of your fellow countrymen the best you can. The just and humane response is implement an extreme vetting process that weeds certain people out. Blindly letting people in a-la "open borders" is the stupidest of stupid ideas ever to be imagined.
Ya I don't think complete open borders are realistic but asking for extreme vetting sounds detached from the current reality though. It's not like it easy to immigrate to the USA right now... even just visiting can be a hassle for many who have friends and family here.
ReplyDeleteSo even though open borders sound hyperbolic, it is in the right direction I believe. Advanced economies have a lot more to gain than to lose by opening up to immigration, while making sure current citizens have good chances of flourishing too. They aren't mutually exclusive at all for rich countries.
ReplyDeleteThere are no Unicorns, Therefore,No God?
Arguing with atheists I couldn't resist making a strawman argument that was better than the one I had answered beating them both: Does it matter what the majority believe?">
"So yes, if that Central American "convoy" does arrive at our southern border, the only just and humane response ought to be "Welcome aboard! Glad to see you."
ReplyDeleteNo. The just and humane response is to preserve the unity for the benefit of your fellow countrymen the best you can. The just and humane response is implement an extreme vetting process that weeds certain people out. Blindly letting people in a-la "open borders" is the stupidest of stupid ideas ever to be imagined.
I an not for just open boarders, I would go back to Obama's system, not because it's perfect but it's closer to being set up. Pervade for dreamers and allow in convey people who sought aslym but with vetting, However keep their kids with them,
So even though open borders sound hyperbolic
ReplyDeleteFor you, perhaps it is hyperbolic. Starhopper, on the other hand, has said he is not being hyperbolic about it. His deadly serious attitude is reckless and irresponsible. I wouldn't trust Starhopper to protect lives.
"I wouldn't trust Starhopper to protect lives."
ReplyDeleteHmm... As a DoD civilian, I was awarded a military commendation by the Royal Air Force after the 2nd Gulf War for verifiably saving the lives of 27 British airmen (in a very nice ceremony in Southampton) during air combat operations over southern Iraq. It's hanging on my wall right now.
I am also credited with preventing the deaths of hundreds of American servicemen in Iraq by alerting them to the presence of IEDs in their vicinity.
How many lives have you saved, Steve?
If you tell me you want to blindly, recklessly, irresponsibly let people in then you cannot be trusted. Your past accomplishments have nothing to do with it.
ReplyDeleteGuilty as charged.
ReplyDeleteNever forget - the Holy Family were refugees, crossing without documentation (possibly as part of a "caravan"?) into Egypt, to escape tyranny and violence back home.
The Holy Family fled the Massacre of the Innocents. Known in modern times as the Democratic Party's favorite platform plank.
ReplyDeleteYou assume they are all refugees. You're guilty of being stupid and irresponsible. Gullible too. Seek help.
ReplyDeleteIt will take a long time for all these asylum seekers to show up at a legal point of entry and then be processed. Yep, no way they will try to cross illegally or force their way in like they did in Mexico - without seeking asylum in Mexico, as I believe they are supposed to do. Yep, all will go smoothly. Right in time for the midterms, no less.
ReplyDeleteYep.
bmiller said...
ReplyDeleteThe Holy Family fled the Massacre of the Innocents. Known in modern times as the Democratic Party's favorite platform plank.
If I were to choose one political party to engage in policies not respectful of the lives of two-year-olds, it would be the one that even now is saying we need cuts in social welfare programs, aka the Republicans.
One Brow,
ReplyDeleteI would advise you to not engage bmiller on this subject. He suffers from ADS (Abortion Derangement Syndrome).
I would advise you to not engage bmiller on this subject. He suffers from ADS (Abortion Derangement Syndrome).
ReplyDeleteHa ha. It says quite a bit about your value system that you think it's deranged to oppose killing the most innocent and defenseless.
Starhopper said...
ReplyDeleteI would advise you to not engage bmiller on this subject. He suffers from ADS (Abortion Derangement Syndrome).
Believe me, I'm aware that's what he meant.
bmiller said...
ReplyDeleteHa ha. It says quite a bit about your value system that you think it's deranged to oppose killing the most innocent and defenseless.
Actually, he was referring to your penchant for bringing up abortion as a topic in threads that had nothing to do with the subject.
One Brow nailed it. Thank you for saving me the trouble of explaining the obvious.
ReplyDeleteYou mean just like the person who brought up “open borders” as a topic even though it has nothing to do with this blog post?
ReplyDelete“I was being dead serious in advocating open borders a while back”
Aw.. I was bored with the OP.
ReplyDeleteAnd like the person who brought up the Holy Family legally traveling to Egypt and comparing it to the current leftist organized and paid for protest march.
ReplyDeleteIf you've decided to go so far off-road you don't have any room to complain.
Oh, I have room to complain...
ReplyDeletebecause your monomaniacal obsession is bo-o-o-o-o-ring
(whereas I am an unfailing fountain of wit and wisdom).
We all have our pet issues.
ReplyDelete(whereas I am only able to repeat leftist talking points).
ReplyDeleteThere. Fixed it for you.
bmiller said...
ReplyDeleteThere. Fixed it for you.
You felt the need to fix a satirical, self-deprecating comment? Why?