Discussion:
What economists have gotten wrong for decades
(too old to reply)
Snit
2019-07-30 17:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Carroll ran from this ... realizing that Skeeter's claim was utterly
wrong after all, just as I said. Yes, Carroll could also not figure out
that NYC is within 100 miles of the ocean border. LOL!
We were discussing the southern border, but if you need to spin and
divert to "win" then so be it. It's your life, not mine.
More context:

Snit:
-----
And there are many such places within 100 miles of the
border. Over 65% of all Americans live within 100 miles
of a border. For Hispanics the percent is even higher,
more like 75%. These are their homes and jobs where they
travel — and should have full rights of any other
citizen.
-----

Notice here there is NO way this could be just the southern border. None.

Skeeter:
-----
Not if they crossed illegally. 65% of all Americans
live withen 100 miles of the border? That's just insane
thinking.
-----

You called it insane... but it is true.

Snit:
-----
How do you figure?
-----

I could not even guess where you had gone wrong.

Skeeter:
-----
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
-----

Yes, in the context of the 65% of ALL Americans, and 75% of all Hispanic
Americans (the ones being most targeted by the Constitution-free zones)
you made your claim about NYC.

Your claim was idiotic. New York City is *WITHIN* the Constitution-free
zone being discussed!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Snit
2019-07-30 20:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Carroll ran from this ... realizing that Skeeter's claim was utterly
wrong after all, just as I said. Yes, Carroll could also not figure out
that NYC is within 100 miles of the ocean border. LOL!
We were discussing the southern border, but if you need to spin and
divert to "win" then so be it. It's your life, not mine.
    -----
    And there are many such places within 100 miles of the
    border. Over 65% of all Americans live within 100 miles
    of a border. For Hispanics the percent is even higher,
    more like 75%. These are their homes and jobs where they
    travel — and should have full rights of any other
    citizen.
    -----
Notice here there is NO way this could be just the southern border. None.
    -----
    Not if they crossed illegally. 65% of all Americans
    live withen 100 miles of the border? That's just insane
    thinking.
    -----
You called it insane... but it is true.
   -----
   How do you figure?
   -----
I could not even guess where you had gone wrong.
    -----
    There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
    -----
Yes, in the context of the 65% of ALL Americans, and 75% of all Hispanic
Americans (the ones being most targeted by the Constitution-free zones)
you made your claim about NYC.
Your claim was idiotic. New York City is *WITHIN* the Constitution-free
zone being discussed!
Please tells us about all the undocumented Nicaraguans who sneak
into the country by sailing up the coastline to Long Island Sound.
I have no info on that and am not interested in that side issue.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.
Skeeter
2019-07-30 21:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Carroll ran from this ... realizing that Skeeter's claim was utterly
wrong after all, just as I said. Yes, Carroll could also not figure out
that NYC is within 100 miles of the ocean border. LOL!
We were discussing the southern border, but if you need to spin and
divert to "win" then so be it. It's your life, not mine.
-----
And there are many such places within 100 miles of the
border. Over 65% of all Americans live within 100 miles
of a border. For Hispanics the percent is even higher,
more like 75%. These are their homes and jobs where they
travel — and should have full rights of any other
citizen.
-----
Notice here there is NO way this could be just the southern border. None.
-----
Not if they crossed illegally. 65% of all Americans
live withen 100 miles of the border? That's just insane
thinking.
-----
You called it insane... but it is true.
-----
How do you figure?
-----
I could not even guess where you had gone wrong.
-----
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
-----
Yes, in the context of the 65% of ALL Americans, and 75% of all Hispanic
Americans (the ones being most targeted by the Constitution-free zones)
you made your claim about NYC.
Your claim was idiotic. New York City is *WITHIN* the Constitution-free
zone being discussed!
No, we were talking about the southern border, you left that part out
Snip.
Snit
2019-07-30 21:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Snit
Carroll ran from this ... realizing that Skeeter's claim was utterly
wrong after all, just as I said. Yes, Carroll could also not figure out
that NYC is within 100 miles of the ocean border. LOL!
We were discussing the southern border, but if you need to spin and
divert to "win" then so be it. It's your life, not mine.
-----
And there are many such places within 100 miles of the
border. Over 65% of all Americans live within 100 miles
of a border. For Hispanics the percent is even higher,
more like 75%. These are their homes and jobs where they
travel — and should have full rights of any other
citizen.
-----
Notice here there is NO way this could be just the southern border. None.
-----
Not if they crossed illegally. 65% of all Americans
live withen 100 miles of the border? That's just insane
thinking.
-----
You called it insane... but it is true.
-----
How do you figure?
-----
I could not even guess where you had gone wrong.
-----
There's more people in NY city than there is along the border.
-----
Yes, in the context of the 65% of ALL Americans, and 75% of all Hispanic
Americans (the ones being most targeted by the Constitution-free zones)
you made your claim about NYC.
Your claim was idiotic. New York City is *WITHIN* the Constitution-free
zone being discussed!
No, we were talking about the southern border, you left that part out
Notice the context above is about where "Over 65% of all Americans
live". And you think that is "the southern border".

Do you realize how you keep digging your hole deeper as you try to
explain why you did not know NYC was within 100 miles of the US border?
Post by Skeeter
Snip.
What?
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Nadegda
2019-07-30 22:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Ever since they got on their "Nazi" kick (without having any idea what
Nazis actually are)
They're what you see in the mirror every day, ko0ktard.
SPANKY-SPANKY!

<snicker>
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Nadegda
2019-07-30 22:28:11 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
[citation needed], k0ok.
You are not being reasonable.
How so, ko0k?
Exhibit one, in the case to prove the left-wingers can also be
unreasonable idiots: "kensi"
You have failed to build your case for that claim. Just repeating it
with more elaborate wording does not suffice, koOk.
Your claim that concentration camps never have the same end goal of
extermination "at first" was false. Some certainly did, "at first".
Camps are almost never sold to the public as for extermination during the
early stages of Nazification. Much of the time even the higher-ups who are
having them built don't initially intend to go that far. But the camps
suffer mission creep and/or the exterminationist contingent within the
administration becomes more powerful and emboldened over time.

It's the frog-in-boiling-water principle.
If anyone is the kook, it's the person (you) who tries to draw any
parallel at all, from the Nazi camps and ours.
The parallels are there, and are quite ominous. The camps are like
Germany's in 1933 in many respects. Do we really want to just sit and wait
12 years to see if they become like Germany's of 1945? Or do we want to
nip this horrible shit in the bud RIGHT FUCKING NOW?

I agree with kensi here. Liberate the camps.
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Nadegda
2019-07-30 23:00:08 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.

Point: kensi.
i.e. the 1789 document containing the first ten Amendments, not the
original, unamended 1787 Constitution that preceded it.
written. The idea that "We" (any version of it, for any country on the
planet) can prescribe a legal doctrine that applies to *all* "people"
on the planet is off the chart loony...
It doesn't. It applies to the U.S. government, enjoining it from doing
a variety of things *to* (in most instances) all people on the planet.
That's what I just said... it's a limit on what they can do with respect
to "the people" of the United States.
No, it's a limit on what they can to with respect to people, period --
just as kensi said.

Point: kensi.
The phrase: "We the People of the United States"
is in the Preamble, not the Bill of Rights.

Point: kensi.
means exactly what it says, nothing more. Now tell it to
Snit, who is unquestionably confused over this.
How ironic.
The Bill of Rights is an incomplete list of the rights of U.S.
citizens
Wrong. It is not limited to citizens.
LOL! Technically, it is<SPANK>
----------
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
----------

This clearly enjoins Congress from certain actions. It grants no
exceptions. It does not say that Congress may abridge the freedom of
speech, if it's a foreigner's speech or even if that speech takes place
outside of the United States. It says Congress may not abridge the freedom
of speech. Period. Nor may it pass any law that creates a religious
preference, either favoring or disfavoring one -- again no mention of any
other party but Congress itself.

----------
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
----------

This last bit of the First Amendment is the only bit to mention "the
people" at all, but it still is an injunction on Congress not to do
certain things: restrict assembly (presumably inside of the borders, as
laws passed by Congress lack jurisdiction beyond them anyway) or forbid
suing the government (presumably applying to residents, as people not
bound by US law would lack standing to sue -- though this suggests they
failed to anticipate the US polluting or exporting war, weapons, and black
ops regime change operations, so perhaps the whole population of the
planet should have standing to sue).

Point: kensi.

Most of the next items mention "the people" or "a person" but do nothing
to suggest that this means any narrower set than "all human beings".

The Sixth Amendment changes things up a bit:

----------
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial ...
----------

This refers to "the accused". It also refers to *all* criminal
prosecutions, though, so clearly the nationality of the accused is
irrelevant. Sixth Amendment rights apply to anyone the federal government
prosecutes, citizen or otherwise.

The Seventh and Eighth Amendments make no mention of any party other than
the government. So it cannot demand excessive bail from anyone, citizen or
otherwise, etc.

The last two Amendments in the Bill of Rights again mention "the people".

The Constitution as a whole mentions citizens, as distinct from generic
people, in only a few places. The first requires the President to be a
citizen. The next is Article IV, Section 2, where notably paragraph 1
mentions citizens but paragraph 2 says "a Person" instead, clearly
intending to refer more broadly to any human being. The implication from
that is that anywhere the Constitution refers to "person" rather than
"citizen" it should be interpreted as meaning any person, period.

The Amendments after the Bill of Rights rarely mention the word "citizen".
When they do it is generally in connection with voting rights, which are
of course restricted to citizens.

Point: kensi
that the "*US Government*" is charged with protecting
Wrong. Charged with *not violating*.
It's their job to 'protect' (or if you prefer: "preserve", as in the 7th
Amendment) our rights from being violated. The idea that the gov't
'protects' (or secures) our rights is as old as the gov't itself
<shrug>.
How can someone be "Wrong" for pointing that out? Please explain.
The party being protected *from* is the US Government.

Point: kensi

And the consensus of experts is:

https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-
noncitizens/

----------
Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution.
Indeed, within the borders of the United States, they have most of the
same rights as citizens do, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent bans
most state laws discriminating against noncitizens. There is little if any
serious controversy among experts over this matter.
----------

Point: kensi.

Oh, and:

SPNAK!

<snicker>
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Snit
2019-07-30 23:06:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
The entire Bill of Rights hardly even mentions "citizens".
The reference is "the People" or "We the People" as seen in the
preamble... *those* "people" are U.S. citizens. In the preamble the
term "ou<SMACKAK00K!>
Quit changing the subject. The discussion was about the Bill of Rights,
I was addressing Snit's error as to who "We the People" are (and are
not), he's clearly confused by it... elsewhere he conflated the
Declaration of Independence with the U.S. Constitution.
Nice backpedal and deflection attempt.
Point: kensi.
I will give you two points -- given how my point is "We the People"
includes not just whites but darker skinned people and Carroll insists
this shows I am in "error" and "clearly confused" to say that.
...
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Nadegda
2019-07-30 23:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones
Congress and the SCOTUS says we don't <shrug>.
Nonsense. Laws can be changed and even the Constitution amended.
There's only one single little thing in American law that is truly
utterly immutable, and that is a small portion of the Constitution that
specifies that every state shall have equal representation in the
Senate. That is THE ONE THING that can't be changed, even with
Constitutional amendments.
I had not heard that before... not that it is LIKELY to change, but why
can it NOT be changed?
----------
Article V

...

Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and
fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no
State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the
Senate.
----------

The first bit doesn't matter anymore (there was a time-limited clause
that, interestingly, more or less prescribed open borders for the first 30
years following the ratification of the Constitution; more precisely,
letting any state admit anyone it wanted to, so making immigration a
matter of state, rather than federal, jurisdiction until 1808). The second
bit is more or less as kensi said, unless one were to get *all fifty*
states to agree to abolish equal representation in the Senate. Basically
it prevents 3/4 of the states from ganging up and depriving the other 1/4
of their Senators.
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Snit
2019-07-30 23:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones
Congress and the SCOTUS says we don't <shrug>.
Nonsense. Laws can be changed and even the Constitution amended.
There's only one single little thing in American law that is truly
utterly immutable, and that is a small portion of the Constitution that
specifies that every state shall have equal representation in the
Senate. That is THE ONE THING that can't be changed, even with
Constitutional amendments.
I had not heard that before... not that it is LIKELY to change, but why
can it NOT be changed?
----------
Article V
....
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and
fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no
State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the
Senate.
----------
The first bit doesn't matter anymore (there was a time-limited clause
that, interestingly, more or less prescribed open borders for the first 30
years following the ratification of the Constitution; more precisely,
letting any state admit anyone it wanted to, so making immigration a
matter of state, rather than federal, jurisdiction until 1808). The second
bit is more or less as kensi said, unless one were to get *all fifty*
states to agree to abolish equal representation in the Senate. Basically
it prevents 3/4 of the states from ganging up and depriving the other 1/4
of their Senators.
Thanks. How about making it so representation is tied to taxation... if
you have 20x the representational power of others in the country then
you pay more in federal taxes. Even if we go with half that (to fit the
House, though it is increasingly unequal, too), they would pay 10x more.

No taxation without representation... and let's have our taxation tie
into our level of representation.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Danny Luongo
2019-07-30 23:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes,
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones
Congress and the SCOTUS says we don't <shrug>.
Nonsense. Laws can be changed and even the Constitution amended.
There's only one single little thing in American law that is truly
utterly immutable, and that is a small portion of the Constitution
that specifies that every state shall have equal representation in
the Senate. That is THE ONE THING that can't be changed, even with
Constitutional amendments.
I had not heard that before... not that it is LIKELY to change, but
why can it NOT be changed?
----------
Article V
....
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate.
----------
The first bit doesn't matter anymore (there was a time-limited clause
that, interestingly, more or less prescribed open borders for the first
30 years following the ratification of the Constitution; more
precisely, letting any state admit anyone it wanted to, so making
immigration a matter of state, rather than federal, jurisdiction until
1808). The second bit is more or less as kensi said, unless one were to
get *all fifty* states to agree to abolish equal representation in the
Senate. Basically it prevents 3/4 of the states from ganging up and
depriving the other 1/4 of their Senators.
Thanks. How about making it so representation is tied to taxation... if
you have 20x the representational power of others in the country then
you pay more in federal taxes. Even if we go with half that (to fit the
House, though it is increasingly unequal, too), they would pay 10x more.
That's rich coming from a lazy parasite who lives off a welfare check
because he is too lazy to work.
What is it with you left wing leeches always trying to spend other
people's money?
Post by Snit
No taxation without representation... and let's have our taxation tie
into our level of representation.
You don't pay taxes snit so you should have no representation.
The government is investigating welfare frauds like you snit and I
propose that 1/2 the money saved by not paying cheats like you go to
reduce the taxes of hard working, honestly employed citizens.
Just Wondering
2019-07-30 23:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
We have the choice to NOT have "Constitution free" zones
Congress and the SCOTUS says we don't <shrug>.
Nonsense. Laws can be changed and even the Constitution amended.
There's only one single little thing in American law that is truly
utterly immutable, and that is a small portion of the Constitution that
specifies that every state shall have equal representation in the
Senate. That is THE ONE THING that can't be changed, even with
Constitutional amendments.
I had not heard that before... not that it is LIKELY to change, but why
can it NOT be changed?
----------
Article V
....
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and
fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no
State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the
Senate.
----------
The first bit doesn't matter anymore (there was a time-limited clause
that, interestingly, more or less prescribed open borders for the first 30
years following the ratification of the Constitution; more precisely,
letting any state admit anyone it wanted to, so making immigration a
matter of state, rather than federal, jurisdiction until 1808). The second
bit is more or less as kensi said, unless one were to get *all fifty*
states to agree to abolish equal representation in the Senate. Basically
it prevents 3/4 of the states from ganging up and depriving the other 1/4
of their Senators.
Thanks. How about making it so representation is tied to taxation... if
you have 20x the representational power of others in the country then
you pay more in federal taxes. Even if we go with half that (to fit the
House, though it is increasingly unequal, too), they would pay 10x more.
No taxation without representation... and let's have our taxation tie
into our level of representation.
So write a bill to accomplish that. No one's stopping you.
Get your Representative and Senator to sponsor it. Let us
know how that works out for you.
Nadegda
2019-07-30 23:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3.
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
2019-07-30 23:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nadegda
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3.
Hypocrite bitch! You declared Justice Kavanaugh guilty of
rape without a trial and even without any viable evidence.
--
Yours Truly, Sir Gregory

Nadegda, kensi and Pandora » the three are easily
ignored misandrists and anti-American, leftist liars.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-30 23:50:10 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 23:36:41 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Implicitly, yes... and as I was saying, it's all about being charged
with a crime and going to trial... the salient point here as
differentiated between an undocumented person who may get no trial.
The Constitution *also* forbids the government to just skip having a trial
and go straight to declaring a person guilty.
Leftists could learn from this.

But Kavanaugh got confirmed anyway.

[chuckle]
Nadegda
2019-07-30 23:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-07-30 23:51:02 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 23:41:07 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
As it should... we in the US have a legal presumption of innocence. Does
not mean you as an individual cannot note someone engaging in a crime,
or that the crime is not really a crime unless the person is caught, but
the government is supposed to presume you innocent.
But people-- especially leftists like yourself-- do not have any such
presumption. As Mr. Skeeter points out, Kavanaugh is a perfect example.
Kavanaugh wasn't on trial, idiot.
I didn't say anything about a trial, idiot.

We're talking about the presumption of innocence- something leftists
don't want to even contemplate.
Nadegda
2019-07-30 23:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Near the border isn't 100 miles from the border.  It's more like 100
yards, or perhaps a half mile at most.
CAUTION: Hazardous Machinery. Remain outside of yellow lines while
goalposts are in motion.
<snicker>
Most of the border area is desolate and there's no good reason to be
just wandering around there.
Who decides that? You?
BRB, I think I hear the phone.
It's France calling, they want their statue back.
SPANKY-SPANKY!

<snicker>
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Nadegda
2019-07-30 23:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
I'm not a 'right winger'
Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.........

Why do you defend Trump and his Nazi stooges at every turn, then, kooky?
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Nadegda
2019-07-30 23:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Sex ed doesn't work, people like to fuck and they are going to.
That's the reason why *abstinence-only* sex ed doesn't work.
*Comprehensive* sex ed is, of course, another matter.
--
FNVWe Nadegda

"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with
you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Skeeter admits he mooches his mother's laptop:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=154073947600
Loading...