~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~

[Seacoaster(1)]

It could have been done in a line item or two, not yet another omnibus package. You know…fiscal discipline.

Not remotely.
Our system is vastly underfunded and Mexico ain't riding to the rescue per Trump's promises.

If you cared even a tiny bit, you're read the bill and you'd agree with Lankford.

I read it line by line when it came out. I still stand by belief, that had they simply kept what was set in motion through 2019, not cancel every EA by Trump they would have had far less to focus on...instead the proverbial damn was being built, it was beginning to do its intended job, and the chose to scuttle the entire operation flooding the system, creating more optical problems.

I get it, sometimes you do need to blow things up and 'start over' when it is not working, our border is NOT one of them, why they chose to blow everything up simply proves to me that they wanted to mark their territory like a dog on a mailbox, tell the world we know better, eff the last guy.....that is just ignorance, wasteful, lacking operational wisdom.

Totally unfair take on the border deal. For better than a year, GOP House members clamored for border legislation, making it a bloviating priority for their Congressional majority. A bipartisan deal was hammered out, and included $20 billion for improvements to border security, significant changes to the asylum system, an increase in the number of detention beds available, established a trigger number for shutting down the border, green cards to Afghans admitted or paroled to the US after the pull-out, and substantial new funding for the Border Services. Like almost any legislation, it was imperfect -- under our Constitution and in our two party system, almost all legislation of this sort is effectively a settlement agreement, in which each side concedes in the name of consensus. Trump directed his tiny puppet, Mike Johnson, to countermand all of the GOP House's howling statements for more money, etc., because he needed to campaign on it and didn't want Biden to have anything resembling a success.

This is the whole story. No one was telling "the world we know better;" it was getting something done in a polarized environment of Congress, with the assistance and support of Republicans and Democrats. This is the very sort of thing we should encourage and applaud, even if imperfect, in a Congress wracked with gridlock and faced with important matters to legislate upon. The border deal showed that Congress can work, and that the system can work. "Lacking operational wisdom"? Laughable. I mean, literally ludicrous. Look harder at what you are saying. This bill was exactly what Congress is supposed to do. The needs of the GOP nominee for the presidency negated all of these efforts.

You are (intentionally?) missing the premise of my argument, by accepting low standards of work. My entire argument, which is longstanding, is that the way in which we do business in NOT conducive to addressing line item issues. While yes, the bill settled on bi-partisan agreement, at the expense of spending far more than needed, it still wreaks of dysfunction.

As you know, government does not run like a business that produces a range of products or services. The type of efficiencies you are dreaming of rarely, if ever, exist. Because of the differing constituencies and needs of the citizenry from state to state, our system is forced to plug holes, make stopgap adjustments, and rarely produces a comprehensive, properly funded initiative on which everyone can agree. The border deal, in fact, represented the sort of deal cut in the name of consensus that the system itself tends to produce. Expecting something better is nice, but not realistic. The only meaningful takeaway from the aborted border deal is that Republicans killed it (and backstabbed their own Senator from Oklahoma in the process) because they think, for reasons of electoral politics, the border issues were more valuable unaddressed and in the process denied Biden an apparent "win." QED.

[MDlaxfan76]

Youth's premise is that kids in cages was "working" as well as a number of "policies", issued through Executive Orders not legislation, which were then overturned by the Courts. These did NOT address the actual challenges of managing immigration effectively.

Yes, the ugliest of these were reversed. But that's not what caused the bulk of the surge, it was the massive disruption of Covid and its aftershocks in various parts of the world, especially the global south. Big issues of poverty, chaos, governmental disruptions.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Why did I get SSSS on my boarding pass?

The good news is that if we elect Donald Trump, he won't go after anyone he doesn't like. And he hasn't tried it or done it before. I'm sure voting for RFK will be even better in that regard.

I will say it's funny that Gabbard thinks she's that important. Par for the course I guess.

It clearly stays it’s random, she’s implying it was more than multiple times for her and husband.

The article states it's sometimes random and sometimes not random.

The more important question is, if she is not being selected at random, what has she done to warrant additional screening? What is she hiding?

She's also known to lie a lot, so make sure your grain of salt is ready.

[youthathletics]

Why did I get SSSS on my boarding pass?

The good news is that if we elect Donald Trump, he won't go after anyone he doesn't like. And he hasn't tried it or done it before. I'm sure voting for RFK will be even better in that regard.

I will say it's funny that Gabbard thinks she's that important. Par for the course I guess.

It clearly stays it’s random, she’s implying it was more than multiple times for her and husband.

The article states it's sometimes random and sometimes not random.

The more important question is, if she is not being selected at random, what has she done to warrant additional screening? What is she hiding?

She's also known to lie a lot, so make sure your grain of salt is ready.

Exactly....its the very question I originally asked last night, but you seemed more concerned about dropping link stating what SSSS means, throwing a barb at the otherside, rather than actually reading my post and listening to her.

[a fan]

It could have been done in a line item or two, not yet another omnibus package. You know…fiscal discipline.

Not remotely.
Our system is vastly underfunded and Mexico ain't riding to the rescue per Trump's promises.

If you cared even a tiny bit, you're read the bill and you'd agree with Lankford.

I read it line by line when it came out. I still stand by belief, that had they simply kept what was set in motion through 2019, not cancel every EA by Trump they would have had far less to focus on...instead the proverbial damn was being built, it was beginning to do its intended job, and the chose to scuttle the entire operation flooding the system, creating more optical problems.

I get it, sometimes you do need to blow things up and 'start over' when it is not working, our border is NOT one of them, why they chose to blow everything up simply proves to me that they wanted to mark their territory like a dog on a mailbox, tell the world we know better, eff the last guy.....that is just ignorance, wasteful, lacking operational wisdom.

Totally unfair take on the border deal. For better than a year, GOP House members clamored for border legislation, making it a bloviating priority for their Congressional majority. A bipartisan deal was hammered out, and included $20 billion for improvements to border security, significant changes to the asylum system, an increase in the number of detention beds available, established a trigger number for shutting down the border, green cards to Afghans admitted or paroled to the US after the pull-out, and substantial new funding for the Border Services. Like almost any legislation, it was imperfect -- under our Constitution and in our two party system, almost all legislation of this sort is effectively a settlement agreement, in which each side concedes in the name of consensus. Trump directed his tiny puppet, Mike Johnson, to countermand all of the GOP House's howling statements for more money, etc., because he needed to campaign on it and didn't want Biden to have anything resembling a success.

This is the whole story. No one was telling "the world we know better;" it was getting something done in a polarized environment of Congress, with the assistance and support of Republicans and Democrats. This is the very sort of thing we should encourage and applaud, even if imperfect, in a Congress wracked with gridlock and faced with important matters to legislate upon. The border deal showed that Congress can work, and that the system can work. "Lacking operational wisdom"? Laughable. I mean, literally ludicrous. Look harder at what you are saying. This bill was exactly what Congress is supposed to do. The needs of the GOP nominee for the presidency negated all of these efforts.

You are (intentionally?) missing the premise of my argument, by accepting low standards of work. My entire argument, which is longstanding, is that the way in which we do business in NOT conducive to addressing line item issues. While yes, the bill settled on bi-partisan agreement, at the expense of spending far more than needed, it still wreaks of dysfunction.

A. which parts of the bill did you not like?

B. how in heaven's name did you come up with the idea that we're "spending too much" on our immigration, visa, and border protection system?

You're tipping your hand. We have 11 million people here illegally. And yet you're claiming we're (this is really something) "too much" on our immigration and border and visa systems?

Seriously? How about this: how much "should" we be spending, and where on Earth did you come up with this figure?

This tells me two things....1. as I keep saying, you and "the border is open" crew don't REALLY care about this stuff. 2. Nothing that we try and do will make you happy.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Why would this happen beyond what Tulsi believes happened and what a TSA whistleblower states?

https://x.com/tulsigabbard/status/18313 ... a82I2GssRg

OMG. And bubblebathgirl weighed in on this too!!!

Tulsi is a complete piece of turd, a rampant liar looking for relevancy in the sewers of Trump world.

[youthathletics]

It could have been done in a line item or two, not yet another omnibus package. You know…fiscal discipline.

Not remotely.
Our system is vastly underfunded and Mexico ain't riding to the rescue per Trump's promises.

If you cared even a tiny bit, you're read the bill and you'd agree with Lankford.

I read it line by line when it came out. I still stand by belief, that had they simply kept what was set in motion through 2019, not cancel every EA by Trump they would have had far less to focus on...instead the proverbial damn was being built, it was beginning to do its intended job, and the chose to scuttle the entire operation flooding the system, creating more optical problems.

I get it, sometimes you do need to blow things up and 'start over' when it is not working, our border is NOT one of them, why they chose to blow everything up simply proves to me that they wanted to mark their territory like a dog on a mailbox, tell the world we know better, eff the last guy.....that is just ignorance, wasteful, lacking operational wisdom.

Totally unfair take on the border deal. For better than a year, GOP House members clamored for border legislation, making it a bloviating priority for their Congressional majority. A bipartisan deal was hammered out, and included $20 billion for improvements to border security, significant changes to the asylum system, an increase in the number of detention beds available, established a trigger number for shutting down the border, green cards to Afghans admitted or paroled to the US after the pull-out, and substantial new funding for the Border Services. Like almost any legislation, it was imperfect -- under our Constitution and in our two party system, almost all legislation of this sort is effectively a settlement agreement, in which each side concedes in the name of consensus. Trump directed his tiny puppet, Mike Johnson, to countermand all of the GOP House's howling statements for more money, etc., because he needed to campaign on it and didn't want Biden to have anything resembling a success.

This is the whole story. No one was telling "the world we know better;" it was getting something done in a polarized environment of Congress, with the assistance and support of Republicans and Democrats. This is the very sort of thing we should encourage and applaud, even if imperfect, in a Congress wracked with gridlock and faced with important matters to legislate upon. The border deal showed that Congress can work, and that the system can work. "Lacking operational wisdom"? Laughable. I mean, literally ludicrous. Look harder at what you are saying. This bill was exactly what Congress is supposed to do. The needs of the GOP nominee for the presidency negated all of these efforts.

You are (intentionally?) missing the premise of my argument, by accepting low standards of work. My entire argument, which is longstanding, is that the way in which we do business in NOT conducive to addressing line item issues. While yes, the bill settled on bi-partisan agreement, at the expense of spending far more than needed, it still wreaks of dysfunction.

A. which parts of the bill did you not like?

B. how in heaven's name did you come up with the idea that we're "spending too much" on our immigration, visa, and border protection system?

You're tipping your hand. We have 11 million people here illegally. And yet you're claiming we're (this is really something) "too much" on our immigration and border and visa systems?

Seriously? How about this: how much "should" we be spending, and where on Earth did you come up with this figure?

This tells me two things....1. as I keep saying, you and "the border is open" crew don't REALLY care about this stuff. 2. Nothing that we try and do will make you happy.

Nopeity nope. As is normal, your binary two options most always miss the nuanced options, which is the area I am working in. Would be far easier to chat about it over a conversation in person, because you tend to assume intent at the extremes…not a fault, just your love language.

[a fan]

It could have been done in a line item or two, not yet another omnibus package. You know…fiscal discipline.

Not remotely.
Our system is vastly underfunded and Mexico ain't riding to the rescue per Trump's promises.

If you cared even a tiny bit, you're read the bill and you'd agree with Lankford.

I read it line by line when it came out. I still stand by belief, that had they simply kept what was set in motion through 2019, not cancel every EA by Trump they would have had far less to focus on...instead the proverbial damn was being built, it was beginning to do its intended job, and the chose to scuttle the entire operation flooding the system, creating more optical problems.

I get it, sometimes you do need to blow things up and 'start over' when it is not working, our border is NOT one of them, why they chose to blow everything up simply proves to me that they wanted to mark their territory like a dog on a mailbox, tell the world we know better, eff the last guy.....that is just ignorance, wasteful, lacking operational wisdom.

Totally unfair take on the border deal. For better than a year, GOP House members clamored for border legislation, making it a bloviating priority for their Congressional majority. A bipartisan deal was hammered out, and included $20 billion for improvements to border security, significant changes to the asylum system, an increase in the number of detention beds available, established a trigger number for shutting down the border, green cards to Afghans admitted or paroled to the US after the pull-out, and substantial new funding for the Border Services. Like almost any legislation, it was imperfect -- under our Constitution and in our two party system, almost all legislation of this sort is effectively a settlement agreement, in which each side concedes in the name of consensus. Trump directed his tiny puppet, Mike Johnson, to countermand all of the GOP House's howling statements for more money, etc., because he needed to campaign on it and didn't want Biden to have anything resembling a success.

This is the whole story. No one was telling "the world we know better;" it was getting something done in a polarized environment of Congress, with the assistance and support of Republicans and Democrats. This is the very sort of thing we should encourage and applaud, even if imperfect, in a Congress wracked with gridlock and faced with important matters to legislate upon. The border deal showed that Congress can work, and that the system can work. "Lacking operational wisdom"? Laughable. I mean, literally ludicrous. Look harder at what you are saying. This bill was exactly what Congress is supposed to do. The needs of the GOP nominee for the presidency negated all of these efforts.

You are (intentionally?) missing the premise of my argument, by accepting low standards of work. My entire argument, which is longstanding, is that the way in which we do business in NOT conducive to addressing line item issues. While yes, the bill settled on bi-partisan agreement, at the expense of spending far more than needed, it still wreaks of dysfunction.

A. which parts of the bill did you not like?

B. how in heaven's name did you come up with the idea that we're "spending too much" on our immigration, visa, and border protection system?

You're tipping your hand. We have 11 million people here illegally. And yet you're claiming we're (this is really something) "too much" on our immigration and border and visa systems?

Seriously? How about this: how much "should" we be spending, and where on Earth did you come up with this figure?

This tells me two things....1. as I keep saying, you and "the border is open" crew don't REALLY care about this stuff. 2. Nothing that we try and do will make you happy.

No pity nope. As is normal, your binary two options most always miss the nuanced options, which is the area I am working in. Would be far easier to chat about it over a conversation in person, because you tend to assume intent at the extremes…not a fault, just your love language.

What are you talking about?

I asked you a SPECIFIC question: tell us what you didn't like. You claimed you read every line. Clearly SOMETHING jumped out at you.

What was it? This is like that BBC call in show, where a caller claims Brexit worked out fine....and the host asks "a fine opinion. Give us three thing it did".

And as you know....the callers hang up. Every time. Don't be that caller, YA. Answer a SIMPLE question.

[youthathletics]

It could have been done in a line item or two, not yet another omnibus package. You know…fiscal discipline.

Not remotely.
Our system is vastly underfunded and Mexico ain't riding to the rescue per Trump's promises.

If you cared even a tiny bit, you're read the bill and you'd agree with Lankford.

I read it line by line when it came out. I still stand by belief, that had they simply kept what was set in motion through 2019, not cancel every EA by Trump they would have had far less to focus on...instead the proverbial damn was being built, it was beginning to do its intended job, and the chose to scuttle the entire operation flooding the system, creating more optical problems.

I get it, sometimes you do need to blow things up and 'start over' when it is not working, our border is NOT one of them, why they chose to blow everything up simply proves to me that they wanted to mark their territory like a dog on a mailbox, tell the world we know better, eff the last guy.....that is just ignorance, wasteful, lacking operational wisdom.

Totally unfair take on the border deal. For better than a year, GOP House members clamored for border legislation, making it a bloviating priority for their Congressional majority. A bipartisan deal was hammered out, and included $20 billion for improvements to border security, significant changes to the asylum system, an increase in the number of detention beds available, established a trigger number for shutting down the border, green cards to Afghans admitted or paroled to the US after the pull-out, and substantial new funding for the Border Services. Like almost any legislation, it was imperfect -- under our Constitution and in our two party system, almost all legislation of this sort is effectively a settlement agreement, in which each side concedes in the name of consensus. Trump directed his tiny puppet, Mike Johnson, to countermand all of the GOP House's howling statements for more money, etc., because he needed to campaign on it and didn't want Biden to have anything resembling a success.

This is the whole story. No one was telling "the world we know better;" it was getting something done in a polarized environment of Congress, with the assistance and support of Republicans and Democrats. This is the very sort of thing we should encourage and applaud, even if imperfect, in a Congress wracked with gridlock and faced with important matters to legislate upon. The border deal showed that Congress can work, and that the system can work. "Lacking operational wisdom"? Laughable. I mean, literally ludicrous. Look harder at what you are saying. This bill was exactly what Congress is supposed to do. The needs of the GOP nominee for the presidency negated all of these efforts.

You are (intentionally?) missing the premise of my argument, by accepting low standards of work. My entire argument, which is longstanding, is that the way in which we do business in NOT conducive to addressing line item issues. While yes, the bill settled on bi-partisan agreement, at the expense of spending far more than needed, it still wreaks of dysfunction.

A. which parts of the bill did you not like?

B. how in heaven's name did you come up with the idea that we're "spending too much" on our immigration, visa, and border protection system?

You're tipping your hand. We have 11 million people here illegally. And yet you're claiming we're (this is really something) "too much" on our immigration and border and visa systems?

Seriously? How about this: how much "should" we be spending, and where on Earth did you come up with this figure?

This tells me two things....1. as I keep saying, you and "the border is open" crew don't REALLY care about this stuff. 2. Nothing that we try and do will make you happy.

No pity nope. As is normal, your binary two options most always miss the nuanced options, which is the area I am working in. Would be far easier to chat about it over a conversation in person, because you tend to assume intent at the extremes…not a fault, just your love language.

What are you talking about?

I asked you a SPECIFIC question: tell us what you didn't like. You claimed you read every line. Clearly SOMETHING jumped out at you.

What was it? This is like that BBC call in show, where a caller claims Brexit worked out fine....and the host asks "a fine opinion. Give us three thing it did".

And as you know....the callers hang up. Every time. Don't be that caller, YA. Answer a SIMPLE question.

will reply later….. wife is having a procedure, gotta run.

[a fan]

It could have been done in a line item or two, not yet another omnibus package. You know…fiscal discipline.

Not remotely.
Our system is vastly underfunded and Mexico ain't riding to the rescue per Trump's promises.

If you cared even a tiny bit, you're read the bill and you'd agree with Lankford.

I read it line by line when it came out. I still stand by belief, that had they simply kept what was set in motion through 2019, not cancel every EA by Trump they would have had far less to focus on...instead the proverbial damn was being built, it was beginning to do its intended job, and the chose to scuttle the entire operation flooding the system, creating more optical problems.

I get it, sometimes you do need to blow things up and 'start over' when it is not working, our border is NOT one of them, why they chose to blow everything up simply proves to me that they wanted to mark their territory like a dog on a mailbox, tell the world we know better, eff the last guy.....that is just ignorance, wasteful, lacking operational wisdom.

Totally unfair take on the border deal. For better than a year, GOP House members clamored for border legislation, making it a bloviating priority for their Congressional majority. A bipartisan deal was hammered out, and included $20 billion for improvements to border security, significant changes to the asylum system, an increase in the number of detention beds available, established a trigger number for shutting down the border, green cards to Afghans admitted or paroled to the US after the pull-out, and substantial new funding for the Border Services. Like almost any legislation, it was imperfect -- under our Constitution and in our two party system, almost all legislation of this sort is effectively a settlement agreement, in which each side concedes in the name of consensus. Trump directed his tiny puppet, Mike Johnson, to countermand all of the GOP House's howling statements for more money, etc., because he needed to campaign on it and didn't want Biden to have anything resembling a success.

This is the whole story. No one was telling "the world we know better;" it was getting something done in a polarized environment of Congress, with the assistance and support of Republicans and Democrats. This is the very sort of thing we should encourage and applaud, even if imperfect, in a Congress wracked with gridlock and faced with important matters to legislate upon. The border deal showed that Congress can work, and that the system can work. "Lacking operational wisdom"? Laughable. I mean, literally ludicrous. Look harder at what you are saying. This bill was exactly what Congress is supposed to do. The needs of the GOP nominee for the presidency negated all of these efforts.

You are (intentionally?) missing the premise of my argument, by accepting low standards of work. My entire argument, which is longstanding, is that the way in which we do business in NOT conducive to addressing line item issues. While yes, the bill settled on bi-partisan agreement, at the expense of spending far more than needed, it still wreaks of dysfunction.

A. which parts of the bill did you not like?

B. how in heaven's name did you come up with the idea that we're "spending too much" on our immigration, visa, and border protection system?

You're tipping your hand. We have 11 million people here illegally. And yet you're claiming we're (this is really something) "too much" on our immigration and border and visa systems?

Seriously? How about this: how much "should" we be spending, and where on Earth did you come up with this figure?

This tells me two things....1. as I keep saying, you and "the border is open" crew don't REALLY care about this stuff. 2. Nothing that we try and do will make you happy.

No pity nope. As is normal, your binary two options most always miss the nuanced options, which is the area I am working in. Would be far easier to chat about it over a conversation in person, because you tend to assume intent at the extremes…not a fault, just your love language.

What are you talking about?

I asked you a SPECIFIC question: tell us what you didn't like. You claimed you read every line. Clearly SOMETHING jumped out at you.

What was it? This is like that BBC call in show, where a caller claims Brexit worked out fine....and the host asks "a fine opinion. Give us three thing it did".

And as you know....the callers hang up. Every time. Don't be that caller, YA. Answer a SIMPLE question.

will reply later….. wife is having a procedure, gotta run.

Oh, man. Hope it's minor, and she's good. Best to her....

[3rdPersonPlural]

It could have been done in a line item or two, not yet another omnibus package. You know…fiscal discipline.

Not remotely.
Our system is vastly underfunded and Mexico ain't riding to the rescue per Trump's promises.

If you cared even a tiny bit, you're read the bill and you'd agree with Lankford.

I read it line by line when it came out. I still stand by belief, that had they simply kept what was set in motion through 2019, not cancel every EA by Trump they would have had far less to focus on...instead the proverbial damn was being built, it was beginning to do its intended job, and the chose to scuttle the entire operation flooding the system, creating more optical problems.

I get it, sometimes you do need to blow things up and 'start over' when it is not working, our border is NOT one of them, why they chose to blow everything up simply proves to me that they wanted to mark their territory like a dog on a mailbox, tell the world we know better, eff the last guy.....that is just ignorance, wasteful, lacking operational wisdom.

Totally unfair take on the border deal. For better than a year, GOP House members clamored for border legislation, making it a bloviating priority for their Congressional majority. A bipartisan deal was hammered out, and included $20 billion for improvements to border security, significant changes to the asylum system, an increase in the number of detention beds available, established a trigger number for shutting down the border, green cards to Afghans admitted or paroled to the US after the pull-out, and substantial new funding for the Border Services. Like almost any legislation, it was imperfect -- under our Constitution and in our two party system, almost all legislation of this sort is effectively a settlement agreement, in which each side concedes in the name of consensus. Trump directed his tiny puppet, Mike Johnson, to countermand all of the GOP House's howling statements for more money, etc., because he needed to campaign on it and didn't want Biden to have anything resembling a success.

This is the whole story. No one was telling "the world we know better;" it was getting something done in a polarized environment of Congress, with the assistance and support of Republicans and Democrats. This is the very sort of thing we should encourage and applaud, even if imperfect, in a Congress wracked with gridlock and faced with important matters to legislate upon. The border deal showed that Congress can work, and that the system can work. "Lacking operational wisdom"? Laughable. I mean, literally ludicrous. Look harder at what you are saying. This bill was exactly what Congress is supposed to do. The needs of the GOP nominee for the presidency negated all of these efforts.

You are (intentionally?) missing the premise of my argument, by accepting low standards of work. My entire argument, which is longstanding, is that the way in which we do business in NOT conducive to addressing line item issues. While yes, the bill settled on bi-partisan agreement, at the expense of spending far more than needed, it still wreaks of dysfunction.

A. which parts of the bill did you not like?

B. how in heaven's name did you come up with the idea that we're "spending too much" on our immigration, visa, and border protection system?

You're tipping your hand. We have 11 million people here illegally. And yet you're claiming we're (this is really something) "too much" on our immigration and border and visa systems?

Seriously? How about this: how much "should" we be spending, and where on Earth did you come up with this figure?

This tells me two things....1. as I keep saying, you and "the border is open" crew don't REALLY care about this stuff. 2. Nothing that we try and do will make you happy.

No pity nope. As is normal, your binary two options most always miss the nuanced options, which is the area I am working in. Would be far easier to chat about it over a conversation in person, because you tend to assume intent at the extremes…not a fault, just your love language.

What are you talking about?

I asked you a SPECIFIC question: tell us what you didn't like. You claimed you read every line. Clearly SOMETHING jumped out at you.

What was it? This is like that BBC call in show, where a caller claims Brexit worked out fine....and the host asks "a fine opinion. Give us three thing it did".

And as you know....the callers hang up. Every time. Don't be that caller, YA. Answer a SIMPLE question.

will reply later….. wife is having a procedure, gotta run.

Oh, man. Hope it's minor, and she's good. Best to her....

99% of procedures end up as 'all done! all good! We're home now." I am hoping that Ms. Yoot has had the same result. Please let us know, YouthAthletics?

[youthathletics]

It could have been done in a line item or two, not yet another omnibus package. You know…fiscal discipline.

Not remotely.
Our system is vastly underfunded and Mexico ain't riding to the rescue per Trump's promises.

If you cared even a tiny bit, you're read the bill and you'd agree with Lankford.

I read it line by line when it came out. I still stand by belief, that had they simply kept what was set in motion through 2019, not cancel every EA by Trump they would have had far less to focus on...instead the proverbial damn was being built, it was beginning to do its intended job, and the chose to scuttle the entire operation flooding the system, creating more optical problems.

I get it, sometimes you do need to blow things up and 'start over' when it is not working, our border is NOT one of them, why they chose to blow everything up simply proves to me that they wanted to mark their territory like a dog on a mailbox, tell the world we know better, eff the last guy.....that is just ignorance, wasteful, lacking operational wisdom.

Totally unfair take on the border deal. For better than a year, GOP House members clamored for border legislation, making it a bloviating priority for their Congressional majority. A bipartisan deal was hammered out, and included $20 billion for improvements to border security, significant changes to the asylum system, an increase in the number of detention beds available, established a trigger number for shutting down the border, green cards to Afghans admitted or paroled to the US after the pull-out, and substantial new funding for the Border Services. Like almost any legislation, it was imperfect -- under our Constitution and in our two party system, almost all legislation of this sort is effectively a settlement agreement, in which each side concedes in the name of consensus. Trump directed his tiny puppet, Mike Johnson, to countermand all of the GOP House's howling statements for more money, etc., because he needed to campaign on it and didn't want Biden to have anything resembling a success.

This is the whole story. No one was telling "the world we know better;" it was getting something done in a polarized environment of Congress, with the assistance and support of Republicans and Democrats. This is the very sort of thing we should encourage and applaud, even if imperfect, in a Congress wracked with gridlock and faced with important matters to legislate upon. The border deal showed that Congress can work, and that the system can work. "Lacking operational wisdom"? Laughable. I mean, literally ludicrous. Look harder at what you are saying. This bill was exactly what Congress is supposed to do. The needs of the GOP nominee for the presidency negated all of these efforts.

You are (intentionally?) missing the premise of my argument, by accepting low standards of work. My entire argument, which is longstanding, is that the way in which we do business in NOT conducive to addressing line item issues. While yes, the bill settled on bi-partisan agreement, at the expense of spending far more than needed, it still wreaks of dysfunction.

A. which parts of the bill did you not like?

B. how in heaven's name did you come up with the idea that we're "spending too much" on our immigration, visa, and border protection system?

You're tipping your hand. We have 11 million people here illegally. And yet you're claiming we're (this is really something) "too much" on our immigration and border and visa systems?

Seriously? How about this: how much "should" we be spending, and where on Earth did you come up with this figure?

This tells me two things....1. as I keep saying, you and "the border is open" crew don't REALLY care about this stuff. 2. Nothing that we try and do will make you happy.

No pity nope. As is normal, your binary two options most always miss the nuanced options, which is the area I am working in. Would be far easier to chat about it over a conversation in person, because you tend to assume intent at the extremes…not a fault, just your love language.

What are you talking about?

I asked you a SPECIFIC question: tell us what you didn't like. You claimed you read every line. Clearly SOMETHING jumped out at you.

What was it? This is like that BBC call in show, where a caller claims Brexit worked out fine....and the host asks "a fine opinion. Give us three thing it did".

And as you know....the callers hang up. Every time. Don't be that caller, YA. Answer a SIMPLE question.

will reply later….. wife is having a procedure, gotta run.

Oh, man. Hope it's minor, and she's good. Best to her....

99% of procedures end up as 'all done! all good! We're home now." I am hoping that Ms. Yoot has had the same result. Please let us know, YouthAthletics?

Sorry....yes, all clear, no worries, clean bill of health; thanks for checking.

I moved this conversation over to the "Supporting Caravan" Thread...didn't want to clog-up the place with something off topic.

Again, TY!

[Farfromgeneva]

It could have been done in a line item or two, not yet another omnibus package. You know…fiscal discipline.

Not remotely.
Our system is vastly underfunded and Mexico ain't riding to the rescue per Trump's promises.

If you cared even a tiny bit, you're read the bill and you'd agree with Lankford.

I read it line by line when it came out. I still stand by belief, that had they simply kept what was set in motion through 2019, not cancel every EA by Trump they would have had far less to focus on...instead the proverbial damn was being built, it was beginning to do its intended job, and the chose to scuttle the entire operation flooding the system, creating more optical problems.

I get it, sometimes you do need to blow things up and 'start over' when it is not working, our border is NOT one of them, why they chose to blow everything up simply proves to me that they wanted to mark their territory like a dog on a mailbox, tell the world we know better, eff the last guy.....that is just ignorance, wasteful, lacking operational wisdom.

Totally unfair take on the border deal. For better than a year, GOP House members clamored for border legislation, making it a bloviating priority for their Congressional majority. A bipartisan deal was hammered out, and included $20 billion for improvements to border security, significant changes to the asylum system, an increase in the number of detention beds available, established a trigger number for shutting down the border, green cards to Afghans admitted or paroled to the US after the pull-out, and substantial new funding for the Border Services. Like almost any legislation, it was imperfect -- under our Constitution and in our two party system, almost all legislation of this sort is effectively a settlement agreement, in which each side concedes in the name of consensus. Trump directed his tiny puppet, Mike Johnson, to countermand all of the GOP House's howling statements for more money, etc., because he needed to campaign on it and didn't want Biden to have anything resembling a success.

This is the whole story. No one was telling "the world we know better;" it was getting something done in a polarized environment of Congress, with the assistance and support of Republicans and Democrats. This is the very sort of thing we should encourage and applaud, even if imperfect, in a Congress wracked with gridlock and faced with important matters to legislate upon. The border deal showed that Congress can work, and that the system can work. "Lacking operational wisdom"? Laughable. I mean, literally ludicrous. Look harder at what you are saying. This bill was exactly what Congress is supposed to do. The needs of the GOP nominee for the presidency negated all of these efforts.

You are (intentionally?) missing the premise of my argument, by accepting low standards of work. My entire argument, which is longstanding, is that the way in which we do business in NOT conducive to addressing line item issues. While yes, the bill settled on bi-partisan agreement, at the expense of spending far more than needed, it still wreaks of dysfunction.

A. which parts of the bill did you not like?

B. how in heaven's name did you come up with the idea that we're "spending too much" on our immigration, visa, and border protection system?

You're tipping your hand. We have 11 million people here illegally. And yet you're claiming we're (this is really something) "too much" on our immigration and border and visa systems?

Seriously? How about this: how much "should" we be spending, and where on Earth did you come up with this figure?

This tells me two things....1. as I keep saying, you and "the border is open" crew don't REALLY care about this stuff. 2. Nothing that we try and do will make you happy.

No pity nope. As is normal, your binary two options most always miss the nuanced options, which is the area I am working in. Would be far easier to chat about it over a conversation in person, because you tend to assume intent at the extremes…not a fault, just your love language.

What are you talking about?

I asked you a SPECIFIC question: tell us what you didn't like. You claimed you read every line. Clearly SOMETHING jumped out at you.

What was it? This is like that BBC call in show, where a caller claims Brexit worked out fine....and the host asks "a fine opinion. Give us three thing it did".

And as you know....the callers hang up. Every time. Don't be that caller, YA. Answer a SIMPLE question.

will reply later….. wife is having a procedure, gotta run.

The rest of the story and postcript will be on the aboriton thread...

[Brooklyn]

Am absolutely startled to see that ultra right wing Dick Cheney is endorsing Kamala Harris. Not surprised at all as to Liz's vote but Tricky Dick?

Wow - astonishing!

[MDlaxfan76]

Am absolutely startled to see that ultra right wing Dick Cheney is endorsing Kamala Harris. Not surprised at all as to Liz's vote but Tricky Dick?

Wow - astonishing!

Country first.

Whatever else may be thought about Dick, that’s actually who he is. And I’d suggest that though this seems rare in this march toward fascism in which we see so many prominent Rs wilting to the pressures or rewards to join rather than fight, there are a heck of a lot of others who really do care about core principles of democracy that go way beyond “policy”… which is largely transitory.

I’d say the same about Dems and the left. I suspect many would similarly wilt in the face of a successful populist lefty whose power aggregation made them difficult to resist…and yet many others would also put country first if push came to shove.

And we should respect that in those with that chutzpah, cojones, whatever, to stand up to party, putting country first.

[Typical Lax Dad]

It could have been done in a line item or two, not yet another omnibus package. You know…fiscal discipline.

Not remotely.
Our system is vastly underfunded and Mexico ain't riding to the rescue per Trump's promises.

If you cared even a tiny bit, you're read the bill and you'd agree with Lankford.

I read it line by line when it came out. I still stand by belief, that had they simply kept what was set in motion through 2019, not cancel every EA by Trump they would have had far less to focus on...instead the proverbial damn was being built, it was beginning to do its intended job, and the chose to scuttle the entire operation flooding the system, creating more optical problems.

I get it, sometimes you do need to blow things up and 'start over' when it is not working, our border is NOT one of them, why they chose to blow everything up simply proves to me that they wanted to mark their territory like a dog on a mailbox, tell the world we know better, eff the last guy.....that is just ignorance, wasteful, lacking operational wisdom.

Totally unfair take on the border deal. For better than a year, GOP House members clamored for border legislation, making it a bloviating priority for their Congressional majority. A bipartisan deal was hammered out, and included $20 billion for improvements to border security, significant changes to the asylum system, an increase in the number of detention beds available, established a trigger number for shutting down the border, green cards to Afghans admitted or paroled to the US after the pull-out, and substantial new funding for the Border Services. Like almost any legislation, it was imperfect -- under our Constitution and in our two party system, almost all legislation of this sort is effectively a settlement agreement, in which each side concedes in the name of consensus. Trump directed his tiny puppet, Mike Johnson, to countermand all of the GOP House's howling statements for more money, etc., because he needed to campaign on it and didn't want Biden to have anything resembling a success.

This is the whole story. No one was telling "the world we know better;" it was getting something done in a polarized environment of Congress, with the assistance and support of Republicans and Democrats. This is the very sort of thing we should encourage and applaud, even if imperfect, in a Congress wracked with gridlock and faced with important matters to legislate upon. The border deal showed that Congress can work, and that the system can work. "Lacking operational wisdom"? Laughable. I mean, literally ludicrous. Look harder at what you are saying. This bill was exactly what Congress is supposed to do. The needs of the GOP nominee for the presidency negated all of these efforts.

You are (intentionally?) missing the premise of my argument, by accepting low standards of work. My entire argument, which is longstanding, is that the way in which we do business in NOT conducive to addressing line item issues. While yes, the bill settled on bi-partisan agreement, at the expense of spending far more than needed, it still wreaks of dysfunction.

A. which parts of the bill did you not like?

B. how in heaven's name did you come up with the idea that we're "spending too much" on our immigration, visa, and border protection system?

You're tipping your hand. We have 11 million people here illegally. And yet you're claiming we're (this is really something) "too much" on our immigration and border and visa systems?

Seriously? How about this: how much "should" we be spending, and where on Earth did you come up with this figure?

This tells me two things....1. as I keep saying, you and "the border is open" crew don't REALLY care about this stuff. 2. Nothing that we try and do will make you happy.

No pity nope. As is normal, your binary two options most always miss the nuanced options, which is the area I am working in. Would be far easier to chat about it over a conversation in person, because you tend to assume intent at the extremes…not a fault, just your love language.

What are you talking about?

I asked you a SPECIFIC question: tell us what you didn't like. You claimed you read every line. Clearly SOMETHING jumped out at you.

What was it? This is like that BBC call in show, where a caller claims Brexit worked out fine....and the host asks "a fine opinion. Give us three thing it did".

And as you know....the callers hang up. Every time. Don't be that caller, YA. Answer a SIMPLE question.

will reply later….. wife is having a procedure, gotta run.

The rest of the story and postcript will be on the aboriton thread...

You sick!!

[Seacoaster(1)]

It could have been done in a line item or two, not yet another omnibus package. You know…fiscal discipline.

Not remotely.
Our system is vastly underfunded and Mexico ain't riding to the rescue per Trump's promises.

If you cared even a tiny bit, you're read the bill and you'd agree with Lankford.

I read it line by line when it came out. I still stand by belief, that had they simply kept what was set in motion through 2019, not cancel every EA by Trump they would have had far less to focus on...instead the proverbial damn was being built, it was beginning to do its intended job, and the chose to scuttle the entire operation flooding the system, creating more optical problems.

I get it, sometimes you do need to blow things up and 'start over' when it is not working, our border is NOT one of them, why they chose to blow everything up simply proves to me that they wanted to mark their territory like a dog on a mailbox, tell the world we know better, eff the last guy.....that is just ignorance, wasteful, lacking operational wisdom.

Totally unfair take on the border deal. For better than a year, GOP House members clamored for border legislation, making it a bloviating priority for their Congressional majority. A bipartisan deal was hammered out, and included $20 billion for improvements to border security, significant changes to the asylum system, an increase in the number of detention beds available, established a trigger number for shutting down the border, green cards to Afghans admitted or paroled to the US after the pull-out, and substantial new funding for the Border Services. Like almost any legislation, it was imperfect -- under our Constitution and in our two party system, almost all legislation of this sort is effectively a settlement agreement, in which each side concedes in the name of consensus. Trump directed his tiny puppet, Mike Johnson, to countermand all of the GOP House's howling statements for more money, etc., because he needed to campaign on it and didn't want Biden to have anything resembling a success.

This is the whole story. No one was telling "the world we know better;" it was getting something done in a polarized environment of Congress, with the assistance and support of Republicans and Democrats. This is the very sort of thing we should encourage and applaud, even if imperfect, in a Congress wracked with gridlock and faced with important matters to legislate upon. The border deal showed that Congress can work, and that the system can work. "Lacking operational wisdom"? Laughable. I mean, literally ludicrous. Look harder at what you are saying. This bill was exactly what Congress is supposed to do. The needs of the GOP nominee for the presidency negated all of these efforts.

You are (intentionally?) missing the premise of my argument, by accepting low standards of work. My entire argument, which is longstanding, is that the way in which we do business in NOT conducive to addressing line item issues. While yes, the bill settled on bi-partisan agreement, at the expense of spending far more than needed, it still wreaks of dysfunction.

A. which parts of the bill did you not like?

B. how in heaven's name did you come up with the idea that we're "spending too much" on our immigration, visa, and border protection system?

You're tipping your hand. We have 11 million people here illegally. And yet you're claiming we're (this is really something) "too much" on our immigration and border and visa systems?

Seriously? How about this: how much "should" we be spending, and where on Earth did you come up with this figure?

This tells me two things....1. as I keep saying, you and "the border is open" crew don't REALLY care about this stuff. 2. Nothing that we try and do will make you happy.

No pity nope. As is normal, your binary two options most always miss the nuanced options, which is the area I am working in. Would be far easier to chat about it over a conversation in person, because you tend to assume intent at the extremes…not a fault, just your love language.

What are you talking about?

I asked you a SPECIFIC question: tell us what you didn't like. You claimed you read every line. Clearly SOMETHING jumped out at you.

What was it? This is like that BBC call in show, where a caller claims Brexit worked out fine....and the host asks "a fine opinion. Give us three thing it did".

And as you know....the callers hang up. Every time. Don't be that caller, YA. Answer a SIMPLE question.

will reply later….. wife is having a procedure, gotta run.

The rest of the story and postcript will be on the aboriton thread...

Jeez, man. This is over the line.

[Brooklyn]

MD,
I’d say the same about Dems and the left. I suspect many would similarly wilt in the face of a successful populist lefty whose power aggregation made them difficult to resist…and yet many others would also put country first if push came to shove.

We've never had an ultra leftist as Prez like we've had with the ultra right. The closest being VP Henry Wallace who as dropped in favor of Harry S Truman in the 1944 election. Wallace has been said to be a Soviet dupe especially when it came to foreign policy. I read about those allegations decades ago but do not recall any specifics about his overseas travels and dealings during the FDR years which supposedly favored the Soviets. As we all know it is the Republicans who created the Great Depression, the Great Recession, most recessions, and the vast economic disparity between the rich and the poor. Meantime the Democrats produce millions more jobs and economic advancement. It would likely take another Republican caused economic disaster, the type we saw in the 1930s, for the USA to produce an ultra leftist Prez. As it is, most libs/progs/whatever always put country before party. This is why so many fly off to the indys (most of which are financed by the Republicans) and this often splits the left of center vote.

[Farfromgeneva]

It could have been done in a line item or two, not yet another omnibus package. You know…fiscal discipline.

Not remotely.
Our system is vastly underfunded and Mexico ain't riding to the rescue per Trump's promises.

If you cared even a tiny bit, you're read the bill and you'd agree with Lankford.

I read it line by line when it came out. I still stand by belief, that had they simply kept what was set in motion through 2019, not cancel every EA by Trump they would have had far less to focus on...instead the proverbial damn was being built, it was beginning to do its intended job, and the chose to scuttle the entire operation flooding the system, creating more optical problems.

I get it, sometimes you do need to blow things up and 'start over' when it is not working, our border is NOT one of them, why they chose to blow everything up simply proves to me that they wanted to mark their territory like a dog on a mailbox, tell the world we know better, eff the last guy.....that is just ignorance, wasteful, lacking operational wisdom.

Totally unfair take on the border deal. For better than a year, GOP House members clamored for border legislation, making it a bloviating priority for their Congressional majority. A bipartisan deal was hammered out, and included $20 billion for improvements to border security, significant changes to the asylum system, an increase in the number of detention beds available, established a trigger number for shutting down the border, green cards to Afghans admitted or paroled to the US after the pull-out, and substantial new funding for the Border Services. Like almost any legislation, it was imperfect -- under our Constitution and in our two party system, almost all legislation of this sort is effectively a settlement agreement, in which each side concedes in the name of consensus. Trump directed his tiny puppet, Mike Johnson, to countermand all of the GOP House's howling statements for more money, etc., because he needed to campaign on it and didn't want Biden to have anything resembling a success.

This is the whole story. No one was telling "the world we know better;" it was getting something done in a polarized environment of Congress, with the assistance and support of Republicans and Democrats. This is the very sort of thing we should encourage and applaud, even if imperfect, in a Congress wracked with gridlock and faced with important matters to legislate upon. The border deal showed that Congress can work, and that the system can work. "Lacking operational wisdom"? Laughable. I mean, literally ludicrous. Look harder at what you are saying. This bill was exactly what Congress is supposed to do. The needs of the GOP nominee for the presidency negated all of these efforts.

You are (intentionally?) missing the premise of my argument, by accepting low standards of work. My entire argument, which is longstanding, is that the way in which we do business in NOT conducive to addressing line item issues. While yes, the bill settled on bi-partisan agreement, at the expense of spending far more than needed, it still wreaks of dysfunction.

A. which parts of the bill did you not like?

B. how in heaven's name did you come up with the idea that we're "spending too much" on our immigration, visa, and border protection system?

You're tipping your hand. We have 11 million people here illegally. And yet you're claiming we're (this is really something) "too much" on our immigration and border and visa systems?

Seriously? How about this: how much "should" we be spending, and where on Earth did you come up with this figure?

This tells me two things....1. as I keep saying, you and "the border is open" crew don't REALLY care about this stuff. 2. Nothing that we try and do will make you happy.

No pity nope. As is normal, your binary two options most always miss the nuanced options, which is the area I am working in. Would be far easier to chat about it over a conversation in person, because you tend to assume intent at the extremes…not a fault, just your love language.

What are you talking about?

I asked you a SPECIFIC question: tell us what you didn't like. You claimed you read every line. Clearly SOMETHING jumped out at you.

What was it? This is like that BBC call in show, where a caller claims Brexit worked out fine....and the host asks "a fine opinion. Give us three thing it did".

And as you know....the callers hang up. Every time. Don't be that caller, YA. Answer a SIMPLE question.

will reply later….. wife is having a procedure, gotta run.

The rest of the story and postcript will be on the aboriton thread...

You sick!!

Well as my homie Pac once spoken in sublime prose (
Modified for standards here):

How the heck they gon' be the mob when we always on our job? (Take money)
We millionaires
Killin' ain't fair but somebody gotta do it (take money)

So….

https://www.bartleby.com/lit-hub/spoon- ... -epilogue/

[Farfromgeneva]

It could have been done in a line item or two, not yet another omnibus package. You know…fiscal discipline.

Not remotely.
Our system is vastly underfunded and Mexico ain't riding to the rescue per Trump's promises.

If you cared even a tiny bit, you're read the bill and you'd agree with Lankford.

I read it line by line when it came out. I still stand by belief, that had they simply kept what was set in motion through 2019, not cancel every EA by Trump they would have had far less to focus on...instead the proverbial damn was being built, it was beginning to do its intended job, and the chose to scuttle the entire operation flooding the system, creating more optical problems.

I get it, sometimes you do need to blow things up and 'start over' when it is not working, our border is NOT one of them, why they chose to blow everything up simply proves to me that they wanted to mark their territory like a dog on a mailbox, tell the world we know better, eff the last guy.....that is just ignorance, wasteful, lacking operational wisdom.

Totally unfair take on the border deal. For better than a year, GOP House members clamored for border legislation, making it a bloviating priority for their Congressional majority. A bipartisan deal was hammered out, and included $20 billion for improvements to border security, significant changes to the asylum system, an increase in the number of detention beds available, established a trigger number for shutting down the border, green cards to Afghans admitted or paroled to the US after the pull-out, and substantial new funding for the Border Services. Like almost any legislation, it was imperfect -- under our Constitution and in our two party system, almost all legislation of this sort is effectively a settlement agreement, in which each side concedes in the name of consensus. Trump directed his tiny puppet, Mike Johnson, to countermand all of the GOP House's howling statements for more money, etc., because he needed to campaign on it and didn't want Biden to have anything resembling a success.

This is the whole story. No one was telling "the world we know better;" it was getting something done in a polarized environment of Congress, with the assistance and support of Republicans and Democrats. This is the very sort of thing we should encourage and applaud, even if imperfect, in a Congress wracked with gridlock and faced with important matters to legislate upon. The border deal showed that Congress can work, and that the system can work. "Lacking operational wisdom"? Laughable. I mean, literally ludicrous. Look harder at what you are saying. This bill was exactly what Congress is supposed to do. The needs of the GOP nominee for the presidency negated all of these efforts.

You are (intentionally?) missing the premise of my argument, by accepting low standards of work. My entire argument, which is longstanding, is that the way in which we do business in NOT conducive to addressing line item issues. While yes, the bill settled on bi-partisan agreement, at the expense of spending far more than needed, it still wreaks of dysfunction.

A. which parts of the bill did you not like?

B. how in heaven's name did you come up with the idea that we're "spending too much" on our immigration, visa, and border protection system?

You're tipping your hand. We have 11 million people here illegally. And yet you're claiming we're (this is really something) "too much" on our immigration and border and visa systems?

Seriously? How about this: how much "should" we be spending, and where on Earth did you come up with this figure?

This tells me two things....1. as I keep saying, you and "the border is open" crew don't REALLY care about this stuff. 2. Nothing that we try and do will make you happy.

No pity nope. As is normal, your binary two options most always miss the nuanced options, which is the area I am working in. Would be far easier to chat about it over a conversation in person, because you tend to assume intent at the extremes…not a fault, just your love language.

What are you talking about?

I asked you a SPECIFIC question: tell us what you didn't like. You claimed you read every line. Clearly SOMETHING jumped out at you.

What was it? This is like that BBC call in show, where a caller claims Brexit worked out fine....and the host asks "a fine opinion. Give us three thing it did".

And as you know....the callers hang up. Every time. Don't be that caller, YA. Answer a SIMPLE question.

will reply later….. wife is having a procedure, gotta run.

The rest of the story and postcript will be on the aboriton thread...

Jeez, man. This is over the line.

You’ve been arguing with him here for years in what world do you think he’d ever contemplate such a procesure? Try to think in the context of the subject a little it’s so unreal that it’s just an absurd jokes. Unless you object to Blazing Sadldles too.