Swill Merchant

That would be a mistake both politically and ethically.

I do think NR has some very talented writers on its staff, I agree with your depiction of the publication as a whole.

Are you suggesting that if we cannot make a dispositive determination that it iss not true then it must be true?

Interesting that you take for granted that she's telling the truth.

I believe the Democrat's victory lap will prove to be premature.

In this case it appears there is less to it.

The apology wrang hollow. Many seem to think their only sin was jumping the gun. They seem blind to the notion that their malicious attacks on teenagers who were already being systematically destroyed throughout msm for the alleged crime of non-violent harassment were not appropriate even if the story had been true.

I'm pretty sure the story is BS. That was my gut feeling so I looked at her Twitter feed. She never names the gym, the pic looks suspect (she now claims she took it before the incident), and her feed is full of feminist posts. Sounds like a wannabe activist trying to get attention.

My question exactly. Rather than speak in vague platitudes, I would appreciate Mr. Biden explaining specifically what I am responsible for and why. Otherwise I am forced to conclude that he is espousing empty rhetoric aimed at promoting racial division for nefarious purposes.

Your inability to acknowledge your error is telling. When one has the courage to admit his mistakes he earns some level of respect, as he is communicating a willingness to apply self criticism and a commitment to the truth. He who is unwilling to do so, in the face of overwhelming evidence of his error, shows only that he lacks both character & credibility. That this involves the nationwide demonization & doxxing of an innocent teenager makes yours all the more contemptible.

The left is immoral and inhumane. They have no regard for the truth and wilfully destroy the innocent to advance their propaganda. https://www.dailywire.com/news/42418/walsh-4-lessons-we-can-learn-despicable-smear-matt-walsh

The "make-up" call in OT was a legitimate call. Plus, there is no make-up call when the right call would have ended the game.

Tuck Rule 2.0.

The officials quite literally stole the game from the Saints. There should be an asterisk next to this game in the record books.

As someone who approached this game with indifference, I m now pullingly strongly for the Saints. The alternative is the losing team dvancing to the Superbowl due to an egregious missed call by the officiating crew.

I'll not call you an idiot, but I will expose your argument. First, you have posted an editorial that cites other editorials as its sources, and presented it as fact. Secondly, none of those sources are what they are purported to be. Not one addresses the specific proposal of the President. The common argument made by all is that a wall doesn't address overstayed visas (no one is suggesting it would) and that a wall can be tunnelled under (obviously). I'll take them one by one. 1. National Review - Written in 2016 by Andrew McCarthy, this discusses a 1000 ft concrete wall. The primary criticism is not of the wall itself, but of the proposal to have Mexico pay for it. He mentions that $10b "barely qualifies as a rounding error" to the U.S. government. 2. Chicago Tribune - Touted as a conservative source, the writer, Steve Chapman, is a left-leaning, anti-Trump opinion writer. He also writes of a 1000 mile concrete wall. His primary arguments are that it doesn't address overstayed visas, and smugglers will use tunnels & boats. He (unwittingly) admits that walls/fences re-direct illegal crossing to other areas. 3. CATO - This is also about a 1000 mile concrete wall. Many of his primary arguments, such as lack of opacity & drainage issues, are not relevant to the proposed steel barrier. He admits barriers re-direct border crossers to other areas (that don't have physical barriers). 4. US News - This 2011 article is about a 2000 mile fence from "sea to shining sea." So the take away is that walls don't address overstayed visas, can be breached if not monitored and patrolled, and effectively funnel border crossers to other areas. This is nothing everyone did not know already.

By all accounts I've seen Martin was giving it back and playing it off like they were *****-talking friends up until he flipped out and RI realized he "broke J-Mart." I don't purport to know all the details, nor do I claim RI is necessarily blameless, but whatever his transgressions, it appears based on the evidence we know now, the case prosecuted by the media in the court of public opinion was unduly harsh.

I picked that point because it disturbed me. As previously stated, dishonest discourse is a pet peave. Honest disagreement is another story. As to the comparison between border walls and home security walls, I think the meaningful similarities are greater there than in your comparison to the Berlin wall, but the distinctions are significant enough that I do not tend to use those comparisons.

Your overall point is correct, however, the unwillingness to compromise is not symmetrical in my estimation. The President has gone from a $20b concrete wall to a $5b steel barrier. Pelosi has said under no condition will they provide any funding for any barrier at any time. She's not even giving the appearance of a willingness to compromise.

It is not a matter of semantics in any sense. It goes directly to the intent and purpose of the wall. Your argument relies on a guilt by association style correlation fallacy. To follow the principle you're espousing consistently you would have to conclude that the nature of prison walls is indistinguishable from those of a bank.

For whatever faults RI may have, and he clearly has many, I have always thought he got a raw deal as it pertains to Jonathan Martin.

You do not appear interested in getting to the substance of the issue. You prefer a Crossfire level discussion, which I find neither interesting nor constructive. These are campaign talking points that are irrelevant to determining a workable resolution at this juncture. These are not even issues that are important to you. They're talking points you think might persuade others to your POV, but they certainly aren't the core reasons why you hold your position. At least I hope not. That would be unbelievably sad.

I'll happily engage in honest discussion with those of opposing opinions. However, I maintain a low tolerance threshold for dishonesty. Especially in a forum such as this one. If your error was a matter of genuine ignorance then an apology may be in order. However, you seem to have sufficient familiarity with the subject matter to know better. If you have a good argument, put it forth. If you have to lie to make your point you should reconsider what motivates you to make such a point.

No one cares. Least of all you.

The Senate didn't need 60 votes to pass it; 50 would have sufficed. The Senate needed 60 votes to override the Democrats who were blocking the vote. They refused to let it go to a vote, thus opting to shutdown the government. Both parties have gone this route. Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or a fool. Anyone lacking the capacity to distinguish between a wall built to keep people out and one to keep people in is not worth engaging. May you and your wife enjoy your self-pity party. I have a violin playing in the background for you.