You lied again. You were caught again. You're mad again.

Who's the mad one now? Watch that BP, Jl.

Not mad and BP is fine. I just get a kick out of pointing out that you lie so frequently. Really, you're terrible at it, and then you get angry when you get caught. It's not usually on the level of the Aquinas whopper, but it still happens. Probably should abandon it. Maybe I should come up with a special symbol to use. I could call it a "Whopper Alert". I think it would be helpful.

I'll just repost this. It still makes me laugh. Pay special attention to the underlined section. You missed it the first time.

But you didn't. At least now you are approaching honesty, sadly accompanied by the usual whining, complaining, name calling, and griping. "Mr. Nitpick, Jl, has freaked out calling me all sorts of names for not specifying “credible”. His specialty is finding errors in plain language that he does not comprehend. It's an ongoing issue with Mr. Nitpick and does not appear to be going away." I have called you no names. I have not "freaked out". I did not even mention you not specifying credible, so those are all either errors or lies. Your pick.

Do you ever take responsibility for your actions? Why is it always someone else's fault? Well, I will be happy that you at least came near to honesty. It's progress. But still, your statement was VERY clear and VERY definite. "Not a single witness testified that Floyd likely would have survived if not for several underlying med conditions. NOT ONE!" And then you claimed that you knew the trial was fair because, after all, you had watched it EVERY DAY. Now you're mad because it has become clear you didn't know what you were talking about.

In the meantime, Maxine W has really stepped in it now. This from the trial judge. '

"Nelson told the court that there is a "high probability" that jurors will see Waters’ comments. Cahill denied the request."I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned," Cahill said.

Not mad and BP is fine

Lol. Don't get your panties in a bunch, Jl. You're becoming obsessed with me. I must really be getting under your skin again.

Here's some advice from an eminent member of this hallowed website: I'm sure you know what is being referred to. "Please reconsider as it only takes grabbing your ankles and tugging mightily, and freeing you from the dark abyss you are stuck in and freeing you to the reality of fresh air and cleansing sunlight." Now, THAT'S clever writing, Jl. A chance for you to learn from the master.

Now, let's get down to business. You love to re-post your own replies but always fail to re-post the rebuttals posted by others. I understand why you do that. You fear being bested by the other side of a discussion. Then, of course, there's that nit-picking trait you don't seem able to get rid of. You mentioned PM'ing WG. Why not PM her again and seek professional advice. She's a counselor and can help people like you. Give it a try. Tell her Athos sent you.

As for the rest, those interested can see it above. It's the same old stuff, so I doubt there will be much interest. Most here have taken your measure, and found it wanting.

This recent tete-a-tete has been interesting - even fun. But it may be time to put you back in the basement with the other trolls. Maybe not. We'll see.

You've run out of anything useful to say, and I am happy to stand by the accuracy of what I've said, so enough of this. It's past the point of being toxic.

Your attempts to turn discussions into lectures fail miserably. Is that the toxicity you reference?

More of the fair and balanced media at work. "Politico forbids 'crisis' when describing border surge, despite Biden's own use."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/politico-forbids-crisis-when-describing-border-surge-despite-bidens-own-use

politician speak

Old Joe will deal with it no matter what you call it.

Ole Joe has no intention of dealing with border issues, but ask yourself, why would people want to migrate to a country with a high covid infection rate?

So Biden wants 1.8 trillion in new spending with no plan of how to pay for it. The latest noteworthy quote is this. “His plan is about cutting taxes for middle-class families, for child care, for health care, and for families,” an administration official said. “And he believes that we should do that in a fiscally responsible way — first and foremost, by making sure the wealthiest Americans actually pay the taxes they already owe.”

After saying that his massive new spending plan can be done in a "fiscally responsible way", we then find out that the, "White House estimated that the enforcement changes would generate roughly $700 billion in tax revenue over 10 years."

You can draw two things from that statement. #1 is that new revenues will be something less than 700 bil since tax plans never raise what is promised. #2 is that you are being lied to. Since when is raising taxes by 700 bil to pay for 1.9 tril in new spending "fiscally responsible"?



https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/28/joe-biden-detail-18-trillion-families-spending-pro/

when is raising taxes by 700 bil to pay for 1.9 tril in new spending "fiscally responsible"?

JL, it's polispeak, he had to say something, so what better than a tax cut, it has to get through the cut and thrust so it will be modified and become something different just in time for the mid terms

You forget the return on investment from job creation and raising people above the poverty level...which is less money they take from your pocket for those lazy ingrates you hate so much.

He's not cutting taxes, he's raising them. Unfortunately, his spending plans far outstrips any additional revenue he thinks he will get.

We're going to find out the hard way that spending money you only pretend to have is the avenue to disaster.

He's not cutting taxes, he's raising them. Unfortunately, his spending plans far outstrips any additional revenue he thinks he will get.

We're going to find out the hard way that spending money you only pretend to have is the avenue to disaster.

Don't you think that events of recent years have disproved your theory, your country has spent more money, borrowed more money and enjoyed a buoyant economy. Were is this disaster you predict? Even in my own country, politicians are taking a different view on debt, which is somewhat peculiar for a conservative government. The future will show that debt isn't always a bad thing, but taxation is always theft so Biden is performing true to type

27,000 barrels of DDT were dumped off the US Pacific coast, don't tell us about your concern for the environment when you have tried to poison all of us

Were is this disaster you predict? Even in my own country, politicians are taking a different view on debt, which is somewhat peculiar for a conservative government. The future will show that debt isn't always a bad thing, but taxation is always theft so Biden is performing true to type.Time will tell. Our deficit for this year alone amounts to about 10 thousand dollars for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. You seem to think that's a good idea. I don't.


27,000 barrels of DDT were dumped off the US Pacific coast, don't tell us about your concern for the environment when you have tried to poison all of us.Stop with the drama.

Time will tell. Our deficit for this year alone amounts to about 10 thousand dollars for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. You seem to think that's a good idea. I don't.

I think it is great that you have to pay the bill and we don't


Stop with the drama.

Stop the pollution and I will think about it

I think it is great that you have to pay the bill and we don'tIt's this kind of good will from people who survived WW2 because of us that makes me want to tell you guys to kiss off and take care of yourselves. If you do, start learning Chinese ASAP.

It's this kind of good will from people who survived WW2 because of us that makes me want to tell you guys to kiss off and take care of yourselves. If you do, start learning Chinese ASAP.

Ne How Ma, she she

That made me laugh. Maybe we better stay allies after all. 8D

you can only trade on WWII and the Pacific war for so long, fact is, we were a convenient base for you operations after the japs kicked you out of the Philippines. You have gladly pulled your industries out of here when it has suited you and given so much to our former enemies, I sometimes wonder whether being an ally is worth it

If the grass looks greener on the other side go for it. China welcomes you with open arms.

I sometimes wonder whether being an ally is worth itYou already know my feeling. If it was up to me, we would tell Australia and every other "ally" of ours to either pony up with defense spending or find another ally. And that's especially true if everyone in Australia is like you, meaning a person who can scarcely go a day without mocking and denigrating our country.

clete you remind me of the townspeople in the movie 'Shane ' . You welcome the gunslinger into town when you are threatened by bullies . You even rally behind him . But you are never really comfortable with the gunslinger being in your town because he reminds you o lack of fortitude. The gunslinger is never really accepted .... only tolerated . You see no difference between the gunslinger who is pulling your bacon out of the fire with the threat he is in town to eradicate . So when the threat is gone ,the gunslinger becomes the threat .....untlil you need him again.

You know that the Japanese needed to take on Australia to secure their flank . We were not using Australia as a "convenient base of operations " . The truth is that after their attack on Pearl Harbor ,they wasted little time in attacking Australia at Darwin and Broome . More than 80 attacks on Australia occurred before the US eliminated their air and naval threat . The US did that in May 1943 .Even though our fleet was weakened ,we took on the Japanese fleet at Coral Sea..... off of Australia's main land . It was technically a loss for the US. But after that ,mainland Australia was not seriously threatened again.

'Shane '

Shane - greatest movie western ever. Lonesome Dove - greatest TV western ever. Also greatest ever TV mini-series, with possible exception of Victory At Sea. Speaking of the USN, Coral Sea fight was as you say.

I find myself watching the westerns more often as opposed to the things Hollywood tries to pass off as entertainment these days. I have not seen Lonesome Dove. I'll add it to my list . I recently got Amazon Prime so I am watching the Jack Ryan series.
I got to see the cabin that Shane was filmed in when I spent a week hiking in the Grand Tetons .

As for the Aussies . I am very appreciative of their continuing alliance and friendship with the US . I don't believe that Clete's attitude about the US represents the feelings of most Aussies .

I am very appreciative of their continuing alliance and friendship with the US . I don't believe that Clete's attitude about the US represents the feelings of most Aussies .Pretty good statement.

As good as Shane was, I think High Noon is the best western movie ever, followed closely by Conagher.

https://scontent.fmem1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/180044401_4626917597323380_3022629883334502096_n.j pg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=E_l6m9GO2uwAX80kayg&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-1.fna&oh=48b52673b5cc294514d2ec771f22fbc9&oe=60B0FB43

Love the black hatted villain portrayed by a very young Jack Palance in Shane . I chose Shane mostly because of the quintessential theme I described . I was also thinking of some of the Clint Eastwood westerns like ' High Plains Drifter' .But I did not because he in turn despises the towns folk .

High Noon is a good choice too. The hero in that tried to get the townfolk to participate in their defense . But he is met with cowardly reluctance and hostile resentment . He faces the villains alone . Only after the fight do the townsfolk embrace him . He tossed his badge down and leaves .

Coral Sea was 42 not 43, but otherwise your observation was correct and it certainly did much to prevent the Japanese from moving aggressively against the Aussies. It was a major step forward for us coming on the heels of the PH attack.

In High Noon, his newlywed wife's decision to support him towards the end at the risk of her life was really nice.

clete you remind me of the townspeople in the movie 'Shane ' . You welcome the gunslinger into town when you are threatened by bullies . You even rally behind him . But you are never really comfortable with the gunslinger being in your town because he reminds you o lack of fortitude. The gunslinger is never really accepted .... only tolerated . You see no difference between the gunslinger who is pulling your bacon out of the fire with the threat he is in town to eradicate . So when the threat is gone ,the gunslinger becomes the threat .....untlil you need him again.

You know that the Japanese needed to take on Australia to secure their flank . We were not using Australia as a "convenient base of operations " . The truth is that after their attack on Pearl Harbor ,they wasted little time in attacking Australia at Darwin and Broome . More than 80 attacks on Australia occurred before the US eliminated their air and naval threat . The US did that in May 1943 .Even though our fleet was weakened ,we took on the Japanese fleet at Coral Sea..... off of Australia's main land . It was technically a loss for the US. But after that, mainland Australia was not seriously threatened again.

Tom the Coral Sea battle was a long way from Australia and prevented an attack on Port Moresby in what is now Papua-New Guinea. The Japanese never intended to invade Australia but they obviously wanted to neutralise our northern defences and bases and secure Papua-New Guinea where they had a small land force. The Coral Sea was at best a draw with capital ships of both fleets sunk or damaged. What it did prove is the effectiveness of carrier based warfare and the battle switched to the islands

Capturing Port Moresby would have put Japanese air assets within 250 miles of Australia with nothing between the two adversaries but blue water defended by only a relatively weak Aussie navy. The battle, while a tactical victory for Japan, was an enormous strategic victory for the Allies as it prevented the Japanese from establishing southern bases which would have been an advantage for them. Perhaps more importantly, it robbed Japan of two fleet carriers they needed for the Midway battle while the U.S. was able to get Yorktown back in time.

Yes it turned out to be a prelude to more important battle but you know Yamamoto made a tactical mistake at Midway, he assumed that because he lost his carriers he had lost the battle but in fact he still had vastly superior forces and had he pressed on he could have destroyed the carriers and taken Midway and probably the whole of the Hawaiian group.

It typifies the Japanese thinking in WWII, get a bloody nose and run, it certainly was the British thinking in the east

The Japanese already had Timor, much closer but except for Darwin and Broome there were no targets in range of their aircraft so taking Moresby would have been a tactical victory but not a prelude to invasion as there were hundreds of miles of useless country before them

You don’t press on with no carriers unless you want to lose your entire force.

against what? a depleted force with no strike power left? of course he was blind and had no way of knowing this, but he knew he had destroyed the rest of the US navy at Pearl so he should have been more confident

They had much of the same air power that had just sent four carriers to the bottom.

They had lost the Yorktown and many squadrons, yes a few aircraft got through and inflicted heavy damage but the carriers were undefended and very depleted, no, the Japanese lost courage when they lost their carriers, but Yamamoto should have known he now had to fight without carriers

but Yamamoto should have known he now had to fight without carriersEven without the Yorktown, the U.S. still had two fleet carriers left, and Midway still had a number of combat aircraft available as well. Having already basically lost the naval war with the loss of four large carriers, Yamamoto knew the dance was basically over.

Even without the Yorktown, the U.S. still had two fleet carriers left, and Midway still had a number of combat aircraft available as well. Having already basically lost the naval war with the loss of four large carriers, Yamamoto knew the dance was basically over.

Yamamoto didn't really have Midway as an objective, his objective was to destroy the american carriers, he failed his objective, and so he withdrew. He didn't have the bigger picture because he didn't know the size and disposition of the American force. The Japanese navy thought that if they could destroy the american pacific fleet, america would sue for peace. A bad miscalculation

He didn't have the bigger picture you are right, America had the full picture. they knew exactly what was going on...deciphered Japanese code, radar etc.
Yamamoto should have known he now had to fight without carriers
A month earlier (Battle of the Coral Sea) was the first naval battle in history in which the ships involved never sighted or fired directly at each other. No Naval commander would go offense without (carriers) Air Support.
Yamamoto didn't really have Midway as an objective Yamamoto, plotted a large-scale attack. It was meant to be a knockout blow.
his objective was to destroy the American carriers Yes, but he knew there was more to it than that...the strategically important U.S. naval and air base on Midway.  
of course he was blind and had no way of knowing this
he should have been more confident Yamamoto's entire strategy hinged on a surprise attack (he had been ambushed). Have to remember troop transports were involved. How confident should one be with troop transports on the line?
The Japanese lost courage when they lost their carriers Morale was low. All hope was lost. Sinking a Battleship would have a huge negative morale effect. Negative morale of having one sunk caused Japanese to keep theirs in port and the Nazis to spend a lot of time and money trying to keep them hidden.

In High Noon, his newlywed wife's decision to support him towards the end at the risk of her life was really nice.




One of Grace Kelly's best roles . She goes from being a pacifist to using extreme force to defend her husband .

Off topic, but I figured you guys would like this one.

https://scontent.fmem1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/180550298_10225314878001623_2526771326841077459_n. jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=mO3Hh8l9PtYAX8uCeZd&_nc_ht=scontent.fmem1-2.fna&oh=bfb982f420e6718e8fd04dbb306a9ffa&oe=60B4D8D9

Perhaps this one
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5e/19/a4/5e19a4d4b9eb0714fbe9c22423e0a053.jpg

https://external-preview.redd.it/bc19MnlW-iURhcZMnIXscaI1gRbZfYzdDVlm6TCk0Lg.jpg?auto=webp&3b45ddeahttps://i.stack.imgur.com/Pxjq6.jpghttps://external-preview.redd.it/bc19MnlW-iURhcZMnIXscaI1gRbZfYzdDVlm6TCk0Lg.jpg?auto=webp&3b45ddea

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/image/png;base64,iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAQAAAADCAQAAAA e/WZNAAAAEElEQVR42mM8U88ABowYDABAxQPltt5zqAAAAABJRU5 ErkJggg==
In the cartoons: Romney; Biden; Fox | Editorial | stltoday.com (https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/editorial/in-the-cartoons-romney-biden-fox/collection_b90a3fe4-8494-51ce-a8df-4a69c945523f.html#8)

https://images.theweek.com/sites/default/files/250932_rgb_768.png?resize=807x807
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/image/png;base64,iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAQAAAADCAQAAAA e/WZNAAAAEElEQVR42mM8U88ABowYDABAxQPltt5zqAAAAABJRU5 ErkJggg==https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/image/png;base64,iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAQAAAADCAQAAAA e/WZNAAAAEElEQVR42mM8U88ABowYDABAxQPltt5zqAAAAABJRU5 ErkJggg==

They have their truth and we have ours

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/image/png;base64,iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAQAAAADCAQAAAA e/WZNAAAAEElEQVR42mM8U88ABowYDABAxQPltt5zqAAAAABJRU5 ErkJggg==https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/image/png;base64,iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAQAAAADCAQAAAA e/WZNAAAAEElEQVR42mM8U88ABowYDABAxQPltt5zqAAAAABJRU5 ErkJggg==

Anti vaxers are such an insignificant part of the population . Why do the Dems keep harping on them? Let's use some Dem logic . Anti vaxers are just saying "my body my choice"

Anti vaxers are just saying "my body my choice"
I love that one.
Reply (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3868519)

Thank goodness those liberal dems have stopped putting kids into cages.

https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2021/05/1862/1048/bddb9bbb-Conditions-as-of-April-30-1.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

Why do the Dems keep harping on them?

Because anti-vaxxers are putting the rest of the country (and the world) in jeopardy by making herd immunity harder to reach.

no they aren't /if you are confident in the vaccine by all means get jabbed . They are only riskimng themselves .

Absolutely correct, Tom.

They are only riskimng themselves .

They are risking everybody they come in contact with - especially their children and families. You need to educate yourself on how the virus pandemic spreads.

no they aren't /if you are confident in the vaccine by all means get jabbed . They are only riskimng themselves .

And your precious American economy that covid practically destroyed.

And your precious American economy that covid practically destroyed.

No it has been a great inconvenience, the american economy is still powering on, whilst many became infected and many are dead, a great many more did not

And your precious American economy that covid practically destroyed. 1st self imposed recession

1st self imposed recession

Yes panic and foolishness abounded throughout the world, one cannot remove the suspicion it was a CCP plot

No it has been a great inconvenience, .............................. many became infected and many are dead, a great many more did not

Gee, that's wonderful news. Many more lived than died during WW2. All those deaths were a great inconvenience, but, HEY, what are you gonna do?

They are risking everybody they come in contact with - especially their children and families. The vast majority of them do not have the virus and thus put no one at risk.

The vast majority of them do not have the virus and thus put no one at risk.
And you used a permanent marker to mark the foreheads of the no-virus ones so we all know who they are.

How do you know who they are now? Isn't that why we wear masks and social distance? Besides, if you have taken the shots, then why would you need to know?

How do you know who they are now? Isn't that why we wear masks and social distance? Besides, if you have taken the shots, then why would you need to know?
I haven't. Can't get out of my house. Haven't been out since 09/11/2020.

Medical issues? Very sorry if that's the case.

How do you know who they are now?

No one knows. That's the point of getting the vaccine.


Isn't that why we wear masks and social distance?

The anti-vaxxers don't wear masks or social distance.


Besides, if you have taken the shots, then why would you need to know?

Not about knowing or not knowing. Herd immunity comes from taking the vaccine.

The anti-vaxxers don't wear masks or social distance.And you know this how?

If you want to be protected, take the Trump vaccine. If you don't trust the vaccine, then don't take it. Seems pretty simple. In no case should the feds force people to take the vaccine.

In no case should the feds force people to take the vaccine.
Exactly! Let them die! Or kill Grandma and Uncle Ned!

In no case should the feds force people to take the vaccine.

Why not?

I haven't. Can't get out of my house. Haven't been out since 09/11/2020.

If you can't get out of your house you have minimum risk

A little issue called "freedom".

A little issue called "freedom".

If you're referring to my post, your issue sure is little. The necessity of fighting a worldwide pandemic trumps your little issue.

There is no need for any individual to take a shot in order to fight a worldwide pandemic. In our state we have reduced the number of cases dramatically. Some people are vaccinated, but by no means a majority. We are doing wildly better than many states like NY, and better than many nations like Germany and France. We will not surrender our liberties to some shrill voice of panic.

BTW, my wife and I have both taken the vaccine. I would suggest anyone over fifty to take it or those with serious health problems. No problem, but I will not participate at all in forcing others to do so.

We will not surrender our liberties to some shrill voice of panic.
Don't move to India.

I see no need to force anyone to take a shot however I would hope in the interest of all of us getting back to good health and safety that we would do so voluntarily. The life you save may be your own or someone you really care about. Hope for the best but plan for the worst is probably the way this is going to work out. We'll see won't we?

Love it or lose it.

There is no need for any individual to take a shot in order to fight a worldwide pandemic.

The need is for as many as possible to take the shot to fight a worldwide pandemic. No one suggests a single individual is enough.

So you are saying individuals do not have to comply? Well then, we agree.

So you are saying individuals do not have to comply? Well then, we agree.

The need is for as many as possible to take the shot to fight a worldwide pandemic.

The need is for as many as possible to take the shot to fight a worldwide pandemic.

Don't get no more easy as that.

If anyone wants to be protected, they take the shot. Others don't feel the need for it. Fine with me.

If anyone wants to be protected, they take the shot. Others don't feel the need for it.

Those who don't take the shot are putting their children and families in danger.

If they don't have Covid they're putting no one at risk. Besides, there is no real risk to children from Covid. Surely our all knowing, all glorious government can leave some decisions up to free Americans.

Besides, there is no real risk to children from Covid.
"Children, including very young children, can develop COVID-19. Many of them have no symptoms. Those that do get sick tend to experience milder symptoms such as low-grade fever, fatigue, and cough. Some children have had severe complications, but this has been less common. Children with underlying health conditions may be at increased risk for severe illness.

A potentially severe and dangerous complication can occur in children. Called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), it can lead to life-threatening problems with the heart and other organs in the body. In this condition, different body parts, such as the heart, lungs, kidneys, brain, skin, eyes, or gastrointestinal organs, can become inflamed."
https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/coronavirus-outbreak-and-kids

Please feel free to take your grandchildren to visit elderly homebound q church members. Remember, no real risk to children!

please feel free to stay at home until the risk passes, they may not be at risk but you are and so are the people you visit

"Children, including very young children, can develop COVID-19. Many of them have no symptoms. Those that do get sick tend to experience milder symptoms such as low-grade fever, fatigue, and cough. Some children have had severe complications, but this has been less common. Children with underlying health conditions may be at increased risk for severe illness.

A potentially severe and dangerous complication can occur in children. Called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), it can lead to life-threatening problems with the heart and other organs in the body. In this condition, different body parts, such as the heart, lungs, kidneys, brain, skin, eyes, or gastrointestinal organs, can become inflamed."
https://www.health.harvard.edu/disea...break-and-kids (https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/coronavirus-outbreak-and-kids)

I will rephrase my comment. The threat to normal, healthy children from COVID is very, very, very small. The complication you linked to is very rare.

It would be reasonable to place some restrictions on those not yet vaccinated. No visits to nursing homes, for instance.

If they don't have Covid they're putting no one at risk.

They can have Covid without knowing it and transmit it to others.


Besides, there is no real risk to children from Covid.

The medical says otherwise. See MIS-C for children and Covid. Children can be asymptomatic, just like adults. The risk is very real to children.


Surely our all knowing, all glorious government can leave some decisions up to free Americans.

You seem to be letting the government influence your reaction to Covid. The government has not forced anyone to take the vaccine.

Biden admin blows it again. The April jobs report was expected to add about a million new jobs. The total ended up being 1/4 of that. I wonder if that's because Washington is too stupid to figure out that even with 7 million jobs available out there, if you keep paying people hundreds of dollars a week to stay at home and play video games, they are not going to have a motivation to go out and take one of those 7 mil?

Where is DJT when we need him? Or DeSantis? Or Carson? Or Tim Scott? Or Kristi Noem? Or Mike Pence? For that matter, anyone with a working brain who does not amount to a robot in need of programming?

Where is DJT when we need him?

Deflection away from Covid. No answers?

Trump is hiding under his bed somewhere anticipating the jail cell he will soon be living in.

You mean answers like the Trump vaccine which we have only because of Operation Warpspeed, a Trump admin initiative? Is that what you mean? You mean the Trump vaccine which is the leading reason the infection/death rates haven fallen so precipitously? Is that the answer you are looking for?

Speaking of deflection, you have no comment about the pathetic state of the April jobs report. Wonder why? The April jobs report was a disaster, and your reply is some silliness about Trump? Really?

Is that what you mean?

No, I meant your claim that Covid poses no threat to children, and that those without Covid are putting no one at risk, and your comments about government when the truth is government has forced no one to take the vaccine.

1. Covid poses no more threat to children than the flu does. It's a foolish argument.
2. Those without Covid don't put others at risk? What more plainly true statement could be made? "Hey! You better stay away from me. After all, I don't have Covid." Huh?
3. I never said the gov has forced people to take the vaccine. Pay attention. I said the gov should not be allowed to do so. You said they should be allowed. Remember? I said, "In no case should the feds force people to take the vaccine." Your reply was, "
Why not?"

1. Covid poses no more threat to children than the flu does. It's a foolish argument.

The foolish argument is ignoring that both diseases can cause serious illness including death, and are transmissible to others.


Those without Covid don't put others at risk?

The problem here is that the presence of Covid is unknown among any group of people. Those seemingly without it can be asymptomatic.


I said the gov should not be allowed to do so. You said they should be allowed. Remember? I said, "In no case should the feds force people to take the vaccine." Your reply was, "Why not?"

"Why not?" does not mean the government should be allowed. It means why should the government NOT be allowed.

The problem here is that the presence of Covid is unknown among any group of people. Those seemingly without it can be asymptomatic.And thus we wear masks and social distance. But it's all a moot point since you now are saying you don't believe the gov should be able to mandate the vaccine and are not suggesting they do so.


"Why not?" does not mean the government should be allowed. It means why should the government NOT be allowed.So you are asking why the government should not be allowed to do what you are not suggesting they be allowed to do in the first place? Sorry. That doesn't fly.

And thus we wear masks and social distance.

That is correct.


But it's all a moot point since you now are saying you don't believe the gov should be able to mandate the vaccine and are not suggesting they do so.

So you are asking why the government should not be allowed to do what you are not suggesting they be allowed to do in the first place? Sorry. That doesn't fly.

You're confusing yourself. I am asking you what are your reasons for not allowing the government to mandate the vaccine.

"In no case should the feds force people to take the vaccine.
I agree, It would be crazy (Same discussion when they implemented Seatbelts). Who's going to foot the Bill when non-vaccinated person becomes infected? kinda gives them the rite?

Who's going to foot the Bill when non-vaccinated person becomes infected?

Whoever foots it now.

Why wouldn't they foot it? They don't want the vaccine then fine, but if you get sick, make sure you have insurance. A little personal responsibility would be nice.


I am asking you what are your reasons for not allowing the government to mandate the vaccine.If you don't think the gov should force people to take the vaccination, then what is there to discuss? We agree on that.

If you don't think the gov should force people to take the vaccination, then what is there to discuss? We agree on that.


I am asking you what are your reasons for not allowing the government to mandate the vaccine.

Do you have to ask? your constitution, implied or otherwise, doesn't allow this violation of individual freedom

Do you have to ask? your constitution, implied or otherwise, doesn't allow this violation of individual freedom

I am asking a member here what his reasons are. I am NOT asking about the Constitution.

"If you don't think the gov should force people to take the vaccination, then what is there to discuss? We agree on that."

"If you don't think the gov should force people to take the vaccination, then what is there to discuss? We agree on that."

This is not a statement of your reasons. Is there a reason you won't state them?

"If you don't think the gov should force people to take the vaccination, then what is there to discuss? We agree on that."
Please list your reasons why the government "should not" force people to take the vaccination(s).

Why? Are you in favor of it?

Why? Are you in favor of it?
Wait! I asked YOU a question. And I get no answer plus two questions in return.

Correct. It’s called the Wondergirl approach.

Correct. It’s called the Wondergirl approach.
What question of yours haven't I answered? (P.S. I don't cherry-pick Bible verses to prove my point.)

You do it all the time. The most recent would be the two questions you just passed on.

And you still haven’t learned that posting a boatload of scriptures is not, to a thinking person, cherry picking.

You do it all the time. The most recent would be the two questions you just passed on.
I asked you first (to simplify the unanswered question Athos had asked you) to make a list. You walked across that before giving it a swift kick down the alley and asked me TWO questions.

And you still haven’t learned that posting a boatload of scriptures is not, to a thinking person, cherry picking.
I am not going to play "Proof Passages -- Mine Are Better!" and "Bible Bingo" with you.

I asked you first (to simplify the unanswered question Athos had asked you) to make a list. You walked across that before giving it a swift kick down the alley and asked me TWO questions.You didn't answer. I didn't answer. So?


I am not going to play "Proof Passages -- Mine Are Better!" and "Bible Bingo" with you.
And there's the difference. It's serious with me. It's more of a game with you, so you just laugh it off and move on. That's why you can't reply.

You didn't answer. I didn't answer. So?
Athos asked first. You refused to answer. I rephrased his question and simplified it. You refused to respond. BECAUSE. You knew you couldn't give an honest answer without getting beat up.

And there's the difference. It's serious with me. It's more of a game with you, so you just laugh it off and move on. That's why you can't reply.
The game is one you invented. No matter what fantastically perfect verses I throw out, you will post piecemeal, out-of-context "proofs" that my verses weren't good enough. That is not how one reads the Bible and discusses it.

You knew you couldn't give an honest answer without getting beat up.So why didn't you answer? Honor??? (sarcasm meter pegged for the sarcasm limited among us)


The game is one you invented. No matter what fantastically perfect verses I throw out, you will post piecemeal, out-of-context "proofs" that my verses weren't good enough. That is not how one reads the Bible and discusses it.You don't provide verses other than the two most recent ones, neither of which specifically supported your contention and were about as far away from "fantastically perfect" as one can imagine.

You call it games like "Bible bingo". I don't see it that way. It's serious, as I said, to me.

So why didn't you answer?
Nooooooo! It was YOUR turn to answer!

You call it games like "Bible bingo". I don't see it that way. It's serious, as I said, to me.
Serious to you??? What? The competition part??? You aren't open-minded and willing to learn. You want to WIN! and beat down your opponent.

Nooooooo! It was YOUR turn to answer!Not in my view.


Serious to you??? What? The competition part??? You aren't open-minded and willing to learn. You want to WIN! and beat down your opponent.I am interested in the truth. You follow such wild tales as Jesus having a homosexual lover and Paul being a homosexual because it better suits your political and social views.

I am interested in the truth.
Nope. You've shown us many times you aren't -- are interested only in YOUR truth.

What is truth, it is in the eye of the beholder, Pilate saw the truth and still condemned Jesus

What is truth, it is in the eye of the beholder,

You're confusing truth with beauty.

I am not interested in a perverted truth about homosexual lovers. Jesus said He WAS the truth so I go with His words.

What is truth, it is in the eye of the beholder, Pilate saw the truth and still condemned Jesus
True. I think he was afeared of the Truth...washing his hands?


Nope. You've shown us many times you aren't -- are interested only in YOUR truth.
Honestly WG? It appears as if you declared War. Either you've had Homosexual experience and think you'll be alright, not confessing, or you're mad at God for taking your loved ones away, or both?. It's OK to be upset with God. You continually contradict yourself. I think JL is genuinely interested in the truth. You have your truth and that's just it- YOUR TRUTH!
It appears as if you take everything that you read concerning the Bible at face Value?

Honestly WG? It appears as if you declared War. Either you've had Homosexual experience and think you'll be alright, not confessing, or your mad at God for taking your loved ones away, or both?. It's OK to be upset with God.
Wow! You might just have the chops to become a bestselling fiction writer!

Evasive answer.

You're confusing truth with beauty.

No beauty is only skin deep and fades with age, truth is eternal, but often ignored

Evasive answer.
Huh? About what?

No beauty is only skin deep and fades with age, truth is eternal, but often ignored

Then why did you say truth is only subjective, not eternal? Your actual words were "truth is in the eye of the beholder". The phrase you misquoted is about beauty, not truth. Don't bother replying. You shouldn't embarrass yourself any further.

Honestly WG? It appears as if you declared War. Either you've had Homosexual experience and think you'll be alright, not confessing, or you're mad at God for taking your loved ones away, or both?. It's OK to be upset with God. You continually contradict yourself. I think JL is genuinely interested in the truth. You have your truth and that's just it- YOUR TRUTH!
It appears as if you take everything that you read concerning the Bible at face Value?

Well, walter, you show up and start with the nastiness immediately. Is this how Christians are to behave? This website is doing you no good. Best depart or start over with a nod to your self-proclaimed faith.

Wow! You might just have the chops to become a bestselling fiction writer!
I'm up for it if you are? I'll start right away, just need to record 'Your Truth'...Fiction at it's finest.
I was thinking of posting all the times you've contradicted yourself. You are in extreme danger! Stop with this Holy-homosexual dribble.


you show up and start with the nastiness immediately.
Come on, You guys are always brutal (with each other)! What's nasty about it, Homosexual activity? I'm telling it how I see it. I have a hard time understanding where WG is coming from half the time. I say something and her immediate response in always- Nope!, Nooo! and then I say the same "exact thing" later on and she says thank you for post, I enjoyed it??? She is clearly closed minded! [And] For her to say JL is closed minded, pffft!

Then why did you say truth is only subjective, not eternal? Your actual words were "truth is in the eye of the beholder". The phrase you misquoted is about beauty, not truth. Don't bother replying. You shouldn't embarrass yourself any further.

Athos, have you been told today? consider yourself told

Athos, have you been told today? consider yourself told

Another non-reply from you. You ARE consistent.


Come on, You guys are always brutal (with each other)!

You see that as permission to be the same? Following the herd is not usually the Christian thing to do. Courage, young Walter.

What's nasty about it, Homosexual activity? Enlighten me please, what do you consider Nasty? Forget it!
Point being, I see it as WG, having a closed mind, when she herself declares JL as having a closed mind.
Her first response is always the same- NO! NOOO! NO, try again etc.! Doesn't even read the Topic, or post, it's simply NOOOOOO!
Is this how Christians are to behave? You tell me.

Point being,

POINT referred to this from you ------


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by waltero https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3868738#post3868738)

The SSA estimates that it made about $7.9 billion worth of improper payments in total during the 2019 fiscal year.



Your point?




You tell me. {RE CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOR}

Be glad to.

Replying to WG should be in line with your previous rather lengthy sermons-in-words here. I have no objection to those but I think you should practice what you preach.

Her statements are tantamount to sacrilege. I don't think she understands what she's saying. It is not going to end well if she continues with such talk. It would be harmful to practice what she preaches!

Another non-reply from you. You ARE consistent.



You have me confused, my reply was specific, but a little too subtle for you

You have me confused, my reply was specific, but a little too subtle for you

Your reply was anything but specific. It was "consider yourself told". That was not subtle - it was meaningless. If it's an Australian idiom, enlighten us.

Her statements are tantamount to sacrilege.

Now you're sounding like a Pharisee.


It is not going to end well if she continues with such talk.

What does that mean? Who are you to judge?


It would be harmful to practice what she preaches!

That was meant for you, not her.

Huh? About what?You were asked some serious questions, and you responded with silliness about becoming a writer of fiction. That's what you claim to dislike, and yet you do it constantly.

Your reply was anything but specific. It was "consider yourself told". That was not subtle - it was meaningless. If it's an Australian idiom, enlighten us.

It is a polite way of saying, "expletive deleted" off

It is a polite way of saying, "expletive deleted" off

That's not very subtle, is it?

In any case, that's not much of a reply to the charge that you confused truth and beauty. I trust your fellow Aussies are a bit more straightforward and don't hide behind "expletives deleted".

That's not very subtle, is it?

In any case, that's not much of a reply to the charge that you confused truth and beauty. I trust your fellow Aussies are a bit more straightforward and don't hide behind "expletives deleted".

I, and my fellow aussies just get a little sick of hearing some arguments and feel that sometimes some need to be reminded

In any case, that's not much of a reply to the charge that you confused truth and beauty.To be truthful, Athos was correct in his observation.

Both you and Athos are confused, I said beauty was not eternal and that truth is but I know you love to argue, tell me which way is the wind blowing?

What is truth, it is in the eye of the beholder,That is not at all what you said; it's not even close. I posted it above just so you can be reminded. That is what Athos responded to where you claimed truth was, "in the eye of the beholder". I can't imagine you meant it, so if anyone was confused, it was you.

You were asked some serious questions, and you responded with silliness about becoming a writer of fiction. That's what you claim to dislike, and yet you do it constantly.
Another instance of your poor comprehension. I said this to waltero: "Wow! You might just have the chops to become a bestselling fiction writer!"

Waltero's "questions" were silly, even ridiculous, and not worth answering.

Waltero's "questions" were silly, even ridiculous, and not worth answering.I know. It's always someone else's fault. Still, you, once again, did not answer the question. That's five or six times just in the past two days. WG, your middle name is "Evasion".

I know. It's always someone else's fault. Still, you, once again, did not answer the question. That's five or six times just in the past two days. WG, your middle name is "Evasion".
First of all, too often the "questions" aren't honest ones, but are really just nasty jabs at someone -- with answers becoming red meat for future posts. Reminds me of the game of "Telephone."

Waltero's "questions" were silly, even ridiculous, and not worth answering.
Some of your post might have had a hint of Anger towered God? I don't know why you are so pro-gay lifestyle?
Insinuating that Jesus and some of his disciples were ***!

You act as If; God works for me, then I don’t have to work hard at following Jesus Christ.” You got to work like a slave to follow Jesus Christ. It’s got to be the single most significant aspect of your total existence. It will demand your time; it will change your relationships; it will infiltrate your marriage; it will dominate your singleness—if you’re going to be serious. Of course, if you’re not, then you will either stay in some impoverished, baby-like condition or you will eventually fade from view, indicating to yourself and all who look on that you never, ever began.


Honestly WG? It appears as if you declared War (on JL). Either you've had Homosexual experience and think you'll be alright, not confessing, or you're mad at God for taking your loved ones away, or both?. It's OK to be upset with GodReally just nasty jabs- I was being Honest, not my intent to be nasty.

You act as If God works for me, then I don’t have to work hard at following Jesus Christ.” You got to work like a slave to follow Jesus Christ. It’s got to be the single most significant aspect of your total existence. It will demand your time; it will change your relationships; it will infiltrate your marriage; it will dominate your singleness—if you’re going to be serious. Of course, if you’re not, then you will either stay in some impoverished, baby-like condition or you will eventually fade from view, indicating to yourself and all who look on that you never, ever began.

All this from a known racist and a self-admitted liar.

You have lost any credibility you might have had here, W.

You have lost any credibility
No not that! Please say it isn't so!!!

Some of your post might have had a hint of Anger towered God?
Nope. God didn't have anything to do with it. We live in a fallen world. We get sick; we die. I look forward to a new heaven and a new earth, thanks be to Jesus' love for us.


I don't know why you are so pro-gay lifestyle?
I am very much pro the LGBT+ community (that has existed since the beginning of humanity). They didn't choose this. Each is a valuable human being and is in need of our acceptance.

Nope. God didn't have anything to do with it.
You mentioned more than once, loved ones that passed.
Now tell Mother Nature that. Be sure to give her a good scolding on top of it! And throw in that I'm not real happy that she took my younger son away three years ago and blessed my older son with autism. I didn't understand your Mother Nature thingy. I've run across some people that have lost a child and felt anger towered God. I was just guessing you might have felt the same way.

Each is a valuable human being and is in need of our acceptance. Yes, I agree. I will accept them along with anybody who comes my way. I don't understand why a Christian would promote such behavior? To say that the Bible promotes the gay lifestyle, where does that come from? I love that lifestyle, it is great fun, but I hold my distance. I am known to GOD.

I might mention Joseph being a Father, you will dispute that till your dying day. But if somebody shows you gayness in the Bible, you'll run with it till the cows come home?

I am very much pro the LGBT+ community (that has existed since the beginning of humanity).Wild speculation for which there is not a shred of evidence.


They didn't choose this.They, in most cases, do not choose their sexual attractions. They certainly do choose what they do with it.


Each is a valuable human being and is in need of our acceptance.Acceptance? Depends on what you are wanting to accept. They, like all of us, need the life changing power of Jesus.


All this from a known...self-admitted liar.Good grief. Talk about the pot looking for a kettle to call black, here it is.


First of all, too often the "questions" aren't honest ones, but are really just nasty jabs at someone -- with answers becoming red meat for future posts. Reminds me of the game of "Telephone."Perhaps you can post "Wondergirl's guide to Answering Questions" so we could have some idea of which ones you feel compelled to reply to. Usually it is no reply at all.

Wild speculation for which there is not a shred of evidence.
No wild speculation. Read Genesis 3 (and the rest of the Bible that follows). The universe (and humanity) drastically changed once Adam and Eve bit into that forbidden fruit. No more binary only.

They, in most cases, do not choose their sexual attractions. They certainly do choose what they do with it.
"In most cases"??? In NO cases. Dystopia is a huge problem in that community. Suppose your mom got DES (estrogen) injections during her pregnancy with you in order to prevent a miscarriage. You then were born with extermal male organs but your heart, soul, and brain screamed, "I'm female!" Now what?

Acceptance? Depends on what you are wanting to accept. They, like all of us, need the life changing power of Jesus.
And that's my mission, to tell them that Jesus loves them even if JL doesn't.

Perhaps you can post "Wondergirl's guide to Answering Questions" so we could have some idea of which ones you feel compelled to reply to. Usually it is no reply at all.
I reply if they make sense, are honest inquiries, and a real discussion might ensue.

No wild speculation. Read Genesis 3. The universe (and humanity) drastically changed once Adam and Eve bit into that forbidden fruit. No more binary only.As Reagan once said, "There you go again." There is not a hint in Gen. 3 about variant sexual desires. Not a shred. Nada. Nothing. Zero. Doesn't that mean you are basically lying?

Your second comment pertains to TG and not to homosexuals. It is well known that many children experience homosexual desires at the onset of puberty only to move away from that later. But if they are encouraged in that direction, as often happens now, they will continue in a homosexual lifestyle. It is really not binary so much as it is a range.

Your mission is to lie to them about what the Bible says. That's not love, it's hate.


I reply if they make sense, are honest inquiries, and a real discussion might ensue.
Do we all get to follow those guidelines?

There is not a hint in Gen. 3 about variant sexual desires. Not a shred. Nada. Nothing. Zero.
Binary only is no more. Agree or disagree?

Depends on what you mean by, "Binary is no more."

But you do need to stop lying about Gen. 3. What you are saying is flatly untrue and has not one shred of support in the text. I might have thought you were simply mistaken, but it's gone past that now. You really need to stop.

Depends on what you mean by, "Binary is no more."
There is no more only-male and only-female. We are a combo of male-female in a huge variety of aspects.


But you do need to stop lying about Gen. 3.
Read beyond the literal.

There is no more only-male and only-female. We are a combo of male-female in a huge variety of aspects.I would not agree with that.

Beyond the literal? You told me to read Genesis 3. Did you mean that literally? You also said, "The universe (and humanity) drastically changed once Adam and Eve bit into that forbidden fruit." Did you mean that literally? You also claimed, on the basis of Gen. 3, that there is, "no more binary only." Did you mean that literally? Which of those statements did you not mean literally?

Sorry. Sure looks like lying to me.

I would not agree with that.
Your baby is born with a mix of internal and external male and female sex organs. Now what?

Beyond the literal?
Oops, sorry -- forgot you don't understand anything beyond that.

Oops, sorry -- forgot you don't understand anything beyond that.Why not knock off the dopey answers and try to be a little serious? This is why I don't like to discuss things with you. You make a dumb, false, statement, but then it's always someone else's fault. "Oh! Oh! You just don't understand." It really gets sickening.

Why not knock off the dopey answers and try to be a little serious? This is why I don't like to discuss things with you.
Then please reply to my non-dopey question.
WG: There is no more only-male and only-female. We are a combo of male-female in a huge variety of aspects.

I would not agree with that.
Your baby is born with a mix of internal and external male and female sex organs. Now what?

Then please reply to my non-dopey question.No. It'll just come back to this same thing. It always does with you. You can't be honest and it gets old.

No. It'll just come back to this same thing. It always does with you. You can't be honest and it gets old.
Soooo, your conclusion is that I lie and you don't. I'm dishonest and you always tell the truth. You do deep research to find factual information and I flip through Reader's Digest.

That pretty much sums it up, especially the last two sentences. Over the top some, but pretty well right. Your false statement about Gen. 3 is about enough, and especially when you can't be honest enough to simply say you missed it. No, it's got to be someone else's fault. Couldn't be on you. And when I think that you have been telling unsuspecting homosexuals this lying garbage, it really sickens me, and makes me fear for your future. I know that's pretty blunt, but enough is enough.

And when I think that you have been telling unsuspecting homosexuals this lying garbage, it really sickens me, and makes me fear for your future. I know that's pretty blunt, but enough is enough.
As I meet and befriend a member of the LGBT+ community, I treat that individual as a human being and beloved child of God.

As I meet and befriend a member of the LGBT+ community, I treat that individual as a human being and beloved child of God. No, you don't. You treat them in accordance with your own ideas and refuse to tell them the truth. That is not love, it's hate. I'm sure you don't intend it to be that way, but that's the result. If you want to tell them your own ideas, then be honest and tell them that, but don't misrepresent the truth the way you just did with Gen. 3.

No, you don't.
Sure 'nuf, I do. I've treated you that way too, but you refuse to be nice and have an honest relationship.

Sure 'nuf, I do. I've treated you that way too, but you refuse to be nice and have an honest relationship.

Bop him with a rock between his eyes, which is no easy thing considering where his head is stuck at, but practice makes perfect and fitting for the antics of a troll.

Children, play nice now