User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.9560 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Romney doing well and Obama doing poorly, while closely related, are not exactly two sides of the same coin. I think most Presidential debates are much closer to "Romney did a great job and so did Obama", which is why you see both sides arguing how their side won - if both candidates do a strong job explaining and defending their own positions, who wins comes down to whose positions you like better. Last night, I think that Romney did very well for himself, but also that Obama did very poorly: he neither defended his own record particularly well nor rebutted Romney's arguments well. The two are related, of course, but I do think they're distinct. And, in fact, if anything, I'd say that I was more struck by how poorly Obama did than by how well Romney did.
BM doesn't really believe that. Like most of the BBTF lefties, he's all for majority rule when the majority is on his side. When it's not, he starts squealing about "rights".
If you believe some select minority gets to decide for the majority, gets to determine that no matter what they want, no matter how much they express a desire over what period of time within the framework of the government, that no matter what their opinions are worthless then you are on the road to tyranny of the minority over the majority (and are a monster).
You and I both agree slavery is wrong. Horrific even. Great. What is your opinion of the government that allowed it for much of the nations history?
In my opinion it was a legitimate government that was truly expressing the horrific and unjust desires of it citizens and I am glad that it is in the past. I would have been an abolitionist working to change the aggregate opinions of the people. But it was in fact the legitimate government of the US. Perhaps the majority should not always get its way, but over the long term in a Democracy the majority does get its way. That is sort of the point of a Democracy.
The US does tax its citizens. And uses that money to pay for things that David and Ray do not think it should. David and Ray don't get to decide though, the electorate in aggregate get to decide. We have. That is the way it works here in the real world. Deserve's got nothing to do with it.
Don't pretend to know what I think. Feel free to cite something I wrote, but just declaring what I think (and being wrong) is really weak.
And I would love to hear your viewpoint on government, rather than random bomb throwing.
I agree but I would say that most times the debates are a wash which is why both sides can claim victory but again those "victories" come at the expense of the other guy. Some Republican groupie isn't going to say that McCain did great and so did Obama. He is going to say that McCain won the debate and showed the world the Obama doesn't know what he is talking about. Just like some Democrat groupie will say something similar about Obama and McCain.
Maybe if I'm part of that mob, I can help steer it in wise directions. Now where's my giant foam cowboy hat and airhorn?
But seriously, I think he's saying that the U.S. system has a lot of safeguards in place now -- generally the product of "majority rule" too -- so this form of majority rule in this place and time isn't too bad.
I suppose we can't know what you "think," but we know what you've written, and at least according to what your BTF persona has written, Good Face's characterization is exactly accurate. Not wrong in the least.
I think any carping about the moderator is doubly bad for Obama - he does spend a lot of time talking about the problems he inherited. To be honest, I have a lot of sympathy for him on that score and think he isn't wrong to say, whoa, things were horrible when I came in. But talking about that too much sounds like whining, even if it is true. Griping about the moderator simply reinforces that.
The Republicans have said a lot about the ineffectiveness of Obama, most of which I've not taken too seriously. Obama last night seemed to be acting off their script for him.
Institutions don't have rights.
Too bad. many of those same people probably felt that allowing a black and a white to marry also harmed the institution.
On the one hand, you have real people having real rights abridged. On the other, you have some misguided people having their feelings hurt. Should we pass laws outlawing the eating of animals so that vegans will no longer feel harmed by the suffering of animals?
So again, 4.5 hours of staged partisan commercials trumps 4 years and numerous other debates, speeches, and actions? You know his record why does he need to defend it well for you to vote for him? Either you think he has done a good enough job or he hasn't and I don't see how some stagecraft at the end should change that opinion.
The robot has spoken.
Anyone's opinion that can be changed by a single televised debate didn't really have an opinion before the debate. They were oblivious to the political state of the nation for the past 4/8/infinite years, and can probably be swayed one way or another by a strong debate or repeated talking points.
I suppose you're going to start complaining about "programming bias"?
I guess this confuses me. Four years ago, he ran on a ticket of health care for all Americans, getting the troops out of Iraq, and bailing out the auto industry. Agree with those goals or not, he did those things. He approved the operation to capture and kill bin Laden. He also got rid of "Don't ask, don't tell" and added two appropriate candidates to the Supreme Court. He was a bit late to the party, but he came out for gay marriage.
There are certainly areas where he hasn't been a shining star, and things I wish he had done differently. As a Democrat, however, I'd find it hard to call him ineffective, primarily because of a single debate.
I guess I would disagree with the "so did Obama" -- I don't think he did 'great also'... I also don't think he did poorly. I think he was perfectly cromulent - but Romney was good to great and either of those always beats cromulent.
That's why I'm not in any way, shape, or form joining in the silly liberal "uh-oh" nonsense... I don't see how Obama lost any votes last night... Romney probably picked up a few... but Obama still had a cushion.
Nate called last night a field goal that brings the campaign back into a one possession game -- I would agree with that... but Obama's not a choker.
What's more - I guess I've just never felt that Obama was a good debater... He's a good orator... I think he even does well in Q&As; where he can more or less control the stage... but was there any debate from the zillions in 2008 where one would say "Wow, that Obama!" He had one good debate against McCain, but it was sort of a case of him being at the top of his game some things breaking just right. Beyond that, he's too professorial to be a good debate. He tends to come across as icy elitist when he goes on the attack - something I'm sure was (perhaps over-)emphasized in debate prep. He doesn't generally debate - he "discusses" and you can't "discuss" your way to a debate win.
At the end of the day, if you were predisposed to like Mitt, but not committed to voting for him necessarily -- you are probably are now. If you were a true toss-up, you're probably giving Mitt a stronger look, maybe even leaning his way. If you were predisposed to liking Obama, but not committed, you're probably trending towards true toss-up.
"Appropriate"?
Generally appealing to Democrats.
But in this case the two were inseparable. If Obama hadn't been so hesitating and professorial, and had hit back with a lot more force at Romney's half-truth based filibustering, both sides of the equation would've been altered. It's not as if Romney didn't present him with many opportunities, and while the format was constricting, the format was the same for both of them. The problem wasn't either the format or the uber-deference of Jim Lehrer, maddening as that was. The problem was Obama's performance.
But then wudda cudda shudda, and you can't undo what's done. The only real question is what the Obama team will learn from the disaster, and how they plan to avoid a repeat performance. At least the next time around the vaunted "expectation level" will be tilting in a decidedly different direction.
Well, there are liberal complaints... I mean, when fact-checking involves "if we take Mitt Romney at his word" rather than, oh -- saying doing the math or going to copious tapes, then why even bother with fact-checking?
If we take Mitt Romney at his word that he can #### enough gold to magically pay for 5 trillion in tax cuts while keeping virtually every program in place, even strengthen a few, AND cut taxes without layering onto the deficit, then...
But whatever, I long ago reached the point where I find the "librul media" nonsense to be Bobby Knight-esque working the refs and clearly, it long ago worked and continues to work... so it's hardly worth rising above the level of snark and sniping about.
The media - at least, the cable media that tends to drive these sorts of things - pretty much sucks. They're not biased against liberals, and they're not biased against conservatives. They just suck.
Yes I don't know that you think that AGW is a hoax or a lefty conspiracy or a cult like belief, but according to what your BTF persona has written characterizing you as holding those beliefs is exactly accurate, not wrong in the least.
OTOH GFs' description of BM's persona/arguments is not remotely accurate, unless viewed through a libertarian's internal reality distortion field.
I guess this confuses me. Four years ago, he ran on a ticket of health care for all Americans, getting the troops out of Iraq, and bailing out the auto industry. Agree with those goals or not, he did those things. He approved the operation to capture and kill bin Laden. He also got rid of "Don't ask, don't tell" and added two appropriate candidates to the Supreme Court. He was a bit late to the party, but he came out for gay marriage.
There are certainly areas where he hasn't been a shining star, and things I wish he had done differently. As a Democrat, however, I'd find it hard to call him ineffective, primarily because of a single debate.
All true, but to someone watching last night's debate, how many of those talking points were they likely to be taking away once the debate was over? All of them were either poorly defended or ignored altogether.
Well, he's black... I'm sure he had a long day of waiting by the mailbox for his welfare check... either that, or he had a late night planning the coming race war with the new black panthers.
Anyone who cares about those things, though, didn't need a debate to confirm that they happened.
Professorial? He seriously looked like the student to Romney's professor to me.
It was a mismatch.
Ah yes - the old Articles of Confederation argument... but, but, but - we'd keep a common currency and common national defense! So it would be different this time!
I would have gone with "waiting for his free cell phone to come in the mail".
They want a horse race, they will report anything that will get them that horse race (within reason)
Yeah, that was odd. It didn't even require any thinking to respond.
Anyone who cares about those things, though, didn't need a debate to confirm that they happened.
Of course not, but the debates are purportedly directed at convincing the unconvinced, not at changing the minds of people who are already paying attention.
-------------------------------------------------
But in this case the two were inseparable. If Obama hadn't been so hesitating and professorial
Professorial? He seriously looked like the student to Romney's professor to me.
It was a mismatch.
You're right about the mismatch, but Romney could only get away with his schtick because Obama let him. Christ, half of the Republican clown field had Romney on the ropes at one point or another during those primary debates, possibly because they realized that debates like this aren't classroom seminars.
That is a fundamental mischaracterization of what I said. I was going through reasons why Obama was not particularly aggressive last night. It is not because he is running a non-aggressive campaign, since he's had some ads and speeches that have gone after Romney and the Republicans pretty hard. He's staked a lot on the "cool as a cucumber" image for a variety of reasons, and pretty obviously didn't want to undercut that even if it cost him the way it did last night. That might be characterized as a kind of complacency..but he's also not the one who needed a big score going into the debates.
But since you brought it up.... yes, one of the risks they doubtless considered is that there's a certain percentage of white Americans who do not respond well to anything that smacks of "angry black man," and by no means are all of them committed to voting for Romney and/or Republicans. This is a low risk when talking about campaign ads that mention Obama either tangentially or not at all, or speeches given by surrogates like Ted Strickland or Martin O'Malley or Joe Biden. It's quite a bit higher in a one-on-one Romney-Obama debate.
Pretty much the same way I did every day GWB was President.
Anyone who cares about those things, though, didn't need a debate to confirm that they happened.
I was responding more to this, from bunyon:
As my wife said about half an hour in, "I hope to God he's not this out of it when he's at work." She is a lifelong Democrat and loves Obama. Is really afraid he'll lose, not only because of policy but because she likes him and doesn't want his feelings hurt (she also is stauchly for him on policy). But she recognized that he did not look good.
I felt the same way. Everyone has a bad night, but if that was close to the real Obama, he shouldn't be president.
Well, yeah. Naturally. But that simply goes to drive home the point that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS! There is the bias in your own little friggin' noggin and nothing else. When you hear something on the tee-vee that contradicts your internal narrative, you scream "bias!" When you don't, you don't. The point is that the infotainment complex is there to sell advertising, not promote any given political bias. People who whinge about "media bias" morons, by definition.
See, he's not good at multi-tasking.
A fact evident in the name of the person who did the responding, in fact.
You still don't understand what media bias refers to, do you? It's not Chris Matthews. It's hard news stories.
I agree. I just think that after the next debate, if Obama does even a little better, the only remaining talking point from this debate will be the Big Bird line.
And *it doesn't exist.* Clap louder, Susie, and Tinkerbell is still going to die. It. Doesn't. Exist.
Ever planned a race war that requires oppressing what is still a (slight and fading, but still) majority of a country?
You try oppressing whitey with only 13% of the population, about 3% of corporate executives, etc.
It's hard work - we ought to be lauding Obama for being so successful at such an uphill climb and just having the time to still show up for debates.
Right - it's like when Judith Miller and the NYT just refuse to Dick, Donnie, and the boys "at their word" and instead, insist on some substantive evidence... oh, wait...
Or - do you mean it's like all the news stories screaming about the Social Security "crisis"?
They know, but they feel compelled to lie about it. They have to protect the hive at all costs. S'ok though, it's fun watching them dissemble.
Yeah, people much prefer the central planning bureaucrats in Frankfort.
It's a well-known fact that Kentuckians don't have pre-existing conditions, so insurance companies shouldn't have to worry about them there. That's needless regulation and red tape that's holding our economy back and skyrocketing health care premiums.
The what? The hive?!
Do you actually know any liberals or leftists? Getting a coalition of left-leaning folks together in service to a common cause is like trying to herd cats. No person or group wants to subordinate their pet cause and there is no message discipline whatsoever. For instance, there's always someone at, say, an anti-war rally holding a sign about Mumia Abu-Jamal or animal rights.
Further left you find the hilarious (well, to everyone but them) ultra-sectarianism of the Communists.
I might feel less compelled to "lie" about it if you could show me just one example... I'm not talking about studies concerning voting habits or silliness about the fact that journalists tend to be college-educated, who also tend to skew left...
I'm saying just show me a story that exhibits this bias. Since it's so prevalent, I assume you can just go to the NYT website - or WaPo, if you don't want to go through a paywall - and show me a story that has this liberal bias.
Sooo... I'll wait.
Kindly provide me the link to this news story and explain where I can find the liberal bias in it.
It should be easy...
Thank you. I have no problem with disagreements regarding what I actually say, but arguing with Faux Mouse is really weak. If you can't hold your own honestly against a rodent how are you going to handle the big dogs?
Look how funny you are.
I'm happy to go all in on this. The characterization was and is accurate. So it couldn't possibly be dishonest. However, there could be dishonesty on the part of the person denying the obvious... More likely, though, it is just an incredible lack of self awareness on your part. You don't even understand your own positions.
As Will Rogers said (and it is still somewhat true)
What you have to remember to understand though is projection. The Right projects what they are onto the Left. What Rove did, taking your biggest weakness and projecting it onto the opposition right in tune with the GOP SOP. Knowing this makes so much of what you hear make much more sense.
Obama's record is more important than the debates. The problem is that record is mixed, at best, and pretty bad on some things that matter a lot, like the economy and unemployment. Die-hard Democrats aren't going to desert Obama because of his record or debate performance, but soft partisans and swing voters may be convinced to defect because of some combination of Obama's record and the President's own less than persuasive defense of his record.
BTW, the most obvious explanation for Obama's poor performance in the debate is that it was a lot easier job to attack Bush's record in 2008 than defend Obama's in 2012.
Any evidence? I have nearly 1900 posts. Bring on the evidence. I have evidence of your lies, I would love to see your evidence of this. I don't claim 100% perfection on all my posts (I am not a robot after all), but please bring on the evidence.
His signature accomplishment was Obamacare. But the socialists who it's popular with are already voting for him, so that doesn't really help him.
I'm not going to go back through the archives to educate you on what your beliefs are. Your posts have made clear that you are for majority rule as long as the majority agrees with you, and if the majority doesn't you start complaining about rights. We can see this with your nyah nyah'ing on various issues that go your way.
Dude, if you're going to dance around going "all in" on telling someone else what they really believe, despite what they say they believe, you don't get to then be too cool to actually show your work. This is ######## of the highest order.
So...something close to half the country are socialists?
Do you want to be like Sam and GF, and just throw ####, or do you want to be taken seriously? Either way is fine, we can all just #### around, I'm happy to do that, just make a choice.
I suspect these guys.
It's the only way to balance the budget. We are, after all, hundreds of millions of dollars in debt.
fine - a guy hits a 3 run homer in the 9th to make a 5-4 game 7-5, I would absolutely accept that as "clutch"... We can set aside the debate on whether clutch hitting is an actual, measurable skill -- hitting a 9th inning HR to win a game is "clutch".
So... TGF -- kindly give me one example of the equivalent regarding 'media bias'. I'm not even asking you to prove its omnipresent or anything like that... One. Story.
It really should be easy to accomplish.
What is taking you so long?
Hey, I'm the most serious thrower of hash/number signs on this site, ############.
In case it makes you feel better, all the socialists I know say that Obamacare sucks stagnant pond water. Some of them think it's better than nothing, some of them for various reasons don't. Some of them are going to vote for Obama because they think he's better than Romney, while some of them don't see a significant enough difference. No one in either group is particularly enthusiastic about their planned vote.
Seems they weren't expecting the 'Moderate Mitt' pivot this late in the game, so they went in unprepared for that last night. Now that he's made that pivot, Team O is clearly retargeting their message from "Mitt the Rightwing Crazy" to "Mitt the Soulless Flip Flopper."
I know, Sam. I do enjoy your #### throwing.
I didn't participate much in Red Sox Game Chatters for most of this season. The more the losses piled up, they less any one particular loss meant. At some point they weren't worth the expletives. Last September though... I was in rare form.
Couldn't find one post. Either unwilling to look or know you can't find any. That is a great definition of Libertarian "All in".
What would not all in look like? It could not be less substantiated. Couldn't take less work on your part. I guess "all in" means adding those five letters to your post.
And again I am more than OK with debating what I am saying. Tell me I am wrong or insane. Don't tell me what I think, it is really just sad when you do.
EDIT: And I am, naturally enough, all in on this.
So was mine about you and AGW denial, but then you went ranting and raving calling me a liar...
To which I should have responded and called you a liar for calling me a liar,
but at that point it'd look like 2 5 years olds arguing, but I didn't have to go ### for tat because everyone else saw through your BS then as they see through it now.
But it is clear that your basic tactic IS to argue like a petulant 5 year old.
You say something that's BS
and you get called on it
and you double down
and you get called on it
and you triple down
at least JoeK has the wits to redirect arguments, and Sam is sporadically witty (actually you can be too when not acting like a 5 yera old)
I guess they under estimated Mitt's chutzpah...
I assume they won't make that particular mistake again
Apparently. Kudos to Team R for having the balls to play that card (with the caveat that it was the only card they had left to play.)
Probably not. Team O probably lost 1-2% points in their lead last night, considering the coalesced media narrative on Romney's big win. We'll see when the next two-three days polls roll in, of course. If they do that again in the next debate, then you're back to a toss-up with a clear media narrative of Obama "fading" and Romney "surging." But just as likely Team O will reconfigure the message, re-target and right the ship for at least a draw in the next two kabuki theaters. At which point last night's debate will be remembered in much the same way the NL East remembers that one game a couple months ago where Atlanta came back from like, 9 down in the 8th to beat Washington on the road...
And, of course, as the time Mitt Romney said he wanted to kill Big Bird. I'd put money to odds that history will remember that bit longer than they remember the debate winner or loser.
Yup - pretty much sums it up based on Team Obama's response today.
Gotta say - that's a mistake by Team Obama... I mean, it should have been obvious he would do this.
This is actually good timing on Team Romney's part-- and it has been clear for some time that he needed to swerve left. If it's 47% to 47%, you need to make a play for the middle 6.
Surprise and deception have won many a battle (or war).
If you are Romney, now you are a step ahead (initiative wise, not polling wise). Do you tack BACK as soon as Obama start attacking your "new" positions? If this election can be won on style, (and it probably can be) then mystifying the substance arguments could be a good tactic. Just make Obama look confused and defensive. Doesn't matter if you spew lies or half truths, contradict yourself.
Good lord, you were actually serious? Well, one thing to keep in mind is that the stories that don't get press matter as much as those that do. Like how we had to wait over 4 years to get the actual, unbowdlerized version of Obama's angry-black-guy speech that Joe K was all excited about the other day. Can't imagine why that took so long.
But if you want something fresh from today's headlines, how about this sob story from the WaPo? It's listed as "Local" news, although perhaps somebody will eventually track it down, tranquilize it, and put it back in the "Opinion" section where it belongs.
I suppose it's kind of the Law of Competitive Balance of politics. Being behind confers certain advantages -- in this case, making the base desperate enough that they can't risk deserting you -- which Romney is now utilizing.
I am very confused about Romney scheduling a big foreign policy address. If anything, his team's takeaway from this should be \"####, our guy can own a discussion about the economy." I suppose that the logic is that Romney has indeed locked down the economy issue and now needs to solidify his other credentials. But I don't think it's accurate either that Romney has decisively won on the economy, or that if he has in fact won on the economy, he would need to do much of anything else. This move seems risky and not something I'd recommend.
But are you OWNING IT?
What about the people who might have voted against Obama in the past, but because of Obamacare are now able to get the proper health care for their pre-existing condition?
You really don't think there is a significant number of people who are VERY happy with Obamacare because they won't be crushed under medical bills, and that secret clause that says all poor people are free to steal $100 from any rich person they see, as long as they call it "redistribution tax"?
OK, well I'm afraid you're going to have to explain the 'liberal bias' to me. It seems to me to be a story about a LEGAL immigrant whose green card is at risk.
What is biased about the story.
Comrade socialist hive mate stick to the script: "at gunpoint".
As if there haven't been human interest stories in newspapers since newspapers began, and as if a woman who has a one time arrest record from 12 years ago should be deported in 2012 for what she did then. And as if a local feature on a local resident that describes her ordeal is an example of "media bias", rather than simply a variant on an timeless chain of stories about people who get caught up in robotic bureaucracies.
And BTW right below the woman's picture in the print edition, the story also quoted the head of the anti-immigration Center For Immigration Studies, who gave the reasoning behind the law that triggered the woman's deportation proceedings. Not that you would ever have pointed that out.
You're blaming the left for no one on the right having the brains to find a video?
Also, have you never actually seen anyone angry? That ain't angry.
See now I have to admit it, here is your Liberal bias. Liberals have actual interest in humans and their well being. He has you in a box now. I, for one, am willing to concede Liberal bias on that basis.
Note: For future generations combing my posts for ammunition, this is sarcasm. Please bucket appropriately.
and no one has quite yet figured out why the righties were in such a tizzy over that speech...
I can more plausibly argue that the news coverage of that non-event, both 4 years ago and now is evidence of rightwing media bias.
what's really funny was when Mr. I No Longer Wear a Bowtie because I was tired of being hassled in the Subway went on the Hannity Show to hype it...
Evidence [of what I really don't know]? The cadence of Obama's speech was different than how Obama usually talks...
I guess you weren't serious after all.
For starters, it advocates a position rather than reports a story. "Look at this horrible thing happening to this poor girl!"
It assumes facts not in evidence; "young person...made a stupid mistake", "youthful indiscretion". The story accepts the assertion that she wasn't a drug trafficker, but just a girl who lied to the cops so her mom wouldn't get mad at her. Maybe that's true and maybe it isn't, but her narrative is presented as fact despite the fact that she's a convicted felon.
It uses emotional prose in an attempt to evoke pity for the subject. She "faces the specter of being sent to live in a country she has never even visited." Really? A specter? "Her entire adult life has been colored by the arrest and its consequences. Men she dated were often scared off by her situation." Her dates were scared off?!? OH NOES! Then we get descriptions of the horrors those meanies in the criminal justice system have put her through, "She was also fitted with an electronic ankle monitor. She had to stay close to an electric outlet for hours at a time to keep it charged." She has to spend hours a day near an electrical outlet. HOURS! All ending with a tearful plea, "If eventually deported to Cambodia, Khoy said, “I wouldn’t know where to start.”"
The fact that you can't see any of this reinforces what I was talking about in last month's thread. It's not a conspiracy theory; you guys quite literally can't see the bias, and neither can the people who write and print this stuff. It's as natural to you as water is to fish, and no more remarkable.
Then why did the media try so hard to suppress it?
Andrew Sullivan printed the transcript of that speech, in full, the day it was delivered.
Next.
Here's your stupid. No one has tried to "suppress" a speech where Obama is basically channeling Bill Cosby's "take care of you kids and be more responsible" schtick.
Of course, you haven't actually read or watched the speech, have you?
I know this is sarcasm - but I agree here... I mean, if I were to say that conservatives don't care about humans and human interest, I would think it perfectly valid and correct to accuse me of constructing a strawman.
The Chicago Trib local section has a story about a new Catholic radio station planned for Lake county -- including news about a fundraiser to support it. Is that evidence of conservative bias?
That article isn't taking a position and advocating it. It's not assuming facts that aren't in evidence. It's not making an appeal to emotion. Aside from being unlike it in every way, it's exactly like the article I linked.
You asked for "One. Story.". You got it, and in spades. Playing dumb didn't work so now you want to play false equivalences?
And true to form, you still don't.
To the extent that the story is "biased", it's biased in favor of an individual caught in the jaws of a bureaucracy for a crime that took place twelve years ago. It takes a certain kind of mentality to convert that into a "sob story," but then nothing about your twisted slant on life should surprise anyone here by now.
I am not sure what to make of this post. If it is saying my post was unfair snark, then I am on board, it is (and I was trying to admit to that upfront). Otherwise I read it a couple times and I am still not sure, but that could be me. Feel free to either re-explain (for slow and bitter rodents) or just move on with your life either way, because I am willing to concede the unfairness of the post if desired.
So if she was deported 12 years ago, you wouldn't have had any problem with it, but now, because she was essentially gifted with an additional 12 years in the U.S. by an incompetent bureaucracy, she's entitled to stay forever?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main