You would think they would be more concerned with their urban killing fields.Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
No the community they are from votes democratic reliable at a 90 plus percentage rate. #### them and their problems.You would think they would be more concerned with their urban killing fields.Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
Yeah #### the little children. Great attitude.No the community they are from votes democratic reliable at a 90 plus percentage rate. #### them and their problems.You would think they would be more concerned with their urban killing fields.Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
Link? I think he was speaking about the Dream Act, and illegal immigrants who have served in the military, NOT the children at the border.Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
I can't link a local news broadcast. I'd be curious to know how you know about this particular statement and its context. Because the local news was talking about the controversy around here over Rahm agreeing to take in a bunch of these particular kids NOT the Dream Act and illegal immigrants who served in the military.Link? I think he was speaking about the Dream Act, and illegal immigrants who have served in the military, NOT the children at the border.Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
1. It's pretty obvious that Dog wasn't talking about "the little children" at the border, but instead was sarcastically saying what the Senator may be thinking: #### the black people in the "urban killing fields" because they'll vote Democrat anyway.Yeah #### the little children. Great attitude.No the community they are from votes democratic reliable at a 90 plus percentage rate. #### them and their problems.You would think they would be more concerned with their urban killing fields.Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
Perhaps. Likely also illegal. And certainly hypocritical of him to continually berate the GOP House for passing bills that they know won't pass the Senate, while giving the Senate a pass for passing bills that they know won't pass the House.Wow. This would be incredibly brave and gutsy of Obama.
I googled **** Durbin and your quote, and what I came up with is a couple articles from a May speech in which he called illegals who served in the armed forces a "pool of talent". He was promoting the Dream Act.I can't link a local news broadcast. I'd be curious to know how you know about this particular statement and its context. Because the local news was talking about the controversy around here over Rahm agreeing to take in a bunch of these particular kids NOT the Dream Act and illegal immigrants who served in the military.Or are you just talking out your ### again?Link? I think he was speaking about the Dream Act, and illegal immigrants who have served in the military, NOT the children at the border.Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
When the Senate passed immigration reform, I think there was reasonable expectation that the House might pass it too at the time. The media regarded it as a hard but not impossible fight. I don't see the relevance between that and some of the ridiculous votes the Housr has had for show. I don't know enough to judge whether or not Obama's action would be illegal. I hope you're wrong.Perhaps. Likely also illegal. And certainly hypocritical of him to continually berate the GOP House for passing bills that they know won't pass the Senate, while giving the Senate a pass for passing bills that they know won't pass the House.Wow. This would be incredibly brave and gutsy of Obama.
So, nothing to do with his comments yesterday.I googled **** Durbin and your quote, and what I came up with is a couple articles from a May speech in which he called illegals who served in the armed forces a "pool of talent". He was promoting the Dream Act.I can't link a local news broadcast. I'd be curious to know how you know about this particular statement and its context. Because the local news was talking about the controversy around here over Rahm agreeing to take in a bunch of these particular kids NOT the Dream Act and illegal immigrants who served in the military.Or are you just talking out your ### again?Link? I think he was speaking about the Dream Act, and illegal immigrants who have served in the military, NOT the children at the border.Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
Thank you. And importing a pool of talent further neglects the pool of talent we have here. The huge unemployment problems in the African American community could be helped if we shut down the border and created a higher demand for labor in trades and jobs where you can be trained on the job, thus giving poor African Americans a chance to earn a living while learning a skill that some of them would use to start businesses, move up the socioeconomic ladder etc. But hey what do I know? I'm not a senator.Gary Coal Man said:1. It's pretty obvious that Dog wasn't talking about "the little children" at the border, but instead was sarcastically saying what the Senator may be thinking: #### the black people in the "urban killing fields" because they'll vote Democrat anyway.2. Pull your head out of your ### and stop falling for propaganda if you think the border crisis is almost exclusively little children.timschochet said:Yeah #### the little children. Great attitude.Hot Diggity Dog said:No the community they are from votes democratic reliable at a 90 plus percentage rate. #### them and their problems.jonessed said:You would think they would be more concerned with their urban killing fields.Christo said:Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
Sure you may have misconstrued Dog and mistakes do happen, but at least you still got your sanctimony in.
How about poor people in general?Thank you.And importing a pool of talent further neglects the pool of talent we have here. The huge unemployment problems in the African American community could be helped if we shut down the border and created a higher demand for labor in trades and jobs where you can be trained on the job, thus giving poor African Americans a chance to earn a living while learning a skill that some of them would use to start businesses, move up the socioeconomic ladder etc. But hey what do I know? I'm not a senator.Gary Coal Man said:1. It's pretty obvious that Dog wasn't talking about "the little children" at the border, but instead was sarcastically saying what the Senator may be thinking: #### the black people in the "urban killing fields" because they'll vote Democrat anyway.2. Pull your head out of your ### and stop falling for propaganda if you think the border crisis is almost exclusively little children.timschochet said:Yeah #### the little children. Great attitude.Hot Diggity Dog said:No the community they are from votes democratic reliable at a 90 plus percentage rate. #### them and their problems.jonessed said:You would think they would be more concerned with their urban killing fields.Christo said:Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
Sure you may have misconstrued Dog and mistakes do happen, but at least you still got your sanctimony in.
The point is, I couldn't find any of his comments from yesterday. But it seems odd that he would refer to children in that manner. (Though I would agree with him if he did.)Christo said:So, nothing to do with his comments yesterday.timschochet said:I googled **** Durbin and your quote, and what I came up with is a couple articles from a May speech in which he called illegals who served in the armed forces a "pool of talent". He was promoting the Dream Act.Christo said:I can't link a local news broadcast. I'd be curious to know how you know about this particular statement and its context. Because the local news was talking about the controversy around here over Rahm agreeing to take in a bunch of these particular kids NOT the Dream Act and illegal immigrants who served in the military.Or are you just talking out your ### again?timschochet said:Link? I think he was speaking about the Dream Act, and illegal immigrants who have served in the military, NOT the children at the border.Christo said:Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
Strongly disagree with this assertion.Thank you.And importing a pool of talent further neglects the pool of talent we have here. The huge unemployment problems in the African American community could be helped if we shut down the border and created a higher demand for labor in trades and jobs where you can be trained on the job, thus giving poor African Americans a chance to earn a living while learning a skill that some of them would use to start businesses, move up the socioeconomic ladder etc. But hey what do I know? I'm not a senator.Gary Coal Man said:1. It's pretty obvious that Dog wasn't talking about "the little children" at the border, but instead was sarcastically saying what the Senator may be thinking: #### the black people in the "urban killing fields" because they'll vote Democrat anyway.2. Pull your head out of your ### and stop falling for propaganda if you think the border crisis is almost exclusively little children.timschochet said:Yeah #### the little children. Great attitude.Hot Diggity Dog said:No the community they are from votes democratic reliable at a 90 plus percentage rate. #### them and their problems.jonessed said:You would think they would be more concerned with their urban killing fields.Christo said:Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
Sure you may have misconstrued Dog and mistakes do happen, but at least you still got your sanctimony in.
This is true. My argument is that so long as we support the foundations, it pays for the rest.We are already taxing the consumer by supplementing income.
You continuously pick and choose what parts of free market capitalism you feel like supporting. There is a balance between handouts/safety nets and immigration. The more social welfare there is the more expensive importing poverty becomes.
Scandinavia is already at a net negative. For every immigrant they take in they collectively get poorer.
I'm all for increasing immigration of educated people. That's a win/win. I see no reason why we should make it so easy for poor people to migrate and so difficult for educated people. It makes no sense.
This is true. My argument is that so long as we support the foundations, it pays for the rest. The welfare system that so many conservatives care about; that's not a foundation. Free medical care, public schools, Social Security, welfare- these are unimportant to the system. They are all investments which have a net positive value. The foundations to capitalism are free trade, relatively low taxation, and relatively low regulation. So long as we have these in play, the system will continue to thrive.We are already taxing the consumer by supplementing income.
You continuously pick and choose what parts of free market capitalism you feel like supporting. There is a balance between handouts/safety nets and immigration. The more social welfare there is the more expensive importing poverty becomes.
Scandinavia is already at a net negative. For every immigrant they take in they collectively get poorer.
I'm all for increasing immigration of educated people. That's a win/win. I see no reason why we should make it so easy for poor people to migrate and so difficult for educated people. It makes no sense.
Immigration is an essential element of free trade. Your call for educated immigrants is irrelevant, because the market will decide that.
Unless you depend on their votes. Or in tim's case, the attention derived from poorly crafted arguments about their significance.We are already taxing the consumer by supplementing income.
You continuously pick and choose what parts of free market capitalism you feel like supporting. There is a balance between handouts/safety nets and immigration. The more social welfare there is the more expensive importing poverty becomes.
Scandinavia is already at a net negative. For every immigrant they take in they collectively get poorer.
I'm all for increasing immigration of educated people. That's a win/win. I see no reason why we should make it so easy for poor people to migrate and so difficult for educated people. It makes no sense.
I didn't see any mention of "illegal" immigrants in that. It seems they only reference immigrants.Also, for those who want to read it, here is yet another study from the Cato Institute on the fiscal costs of immigration, including illegal immigration:
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-21-fix.pdf
Like most previous studies, it contradicts most of the ridiculous assertions that people like Sarnoff have made in this thread.
well yeah. One of the main arguments that Sarnoff has made is that a fiscal case can be made AGAINST illegal immigration. I dispute that.I didn't see any mention of "illegal" immigrants in that. It seems they only reference immigrants.Also, for those who want to read it, here is yet another study from the Cato Institute on the fiscal costs of immigration, including illegal immigration:
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-21-fix.pdf
Like most previous studies, it contradicts most of the ridiculous assertions that people like Sarnoff have made in this thread.
Also, did you read the summary?
"The economic benefits of immigration are unambiguous and large, but the fiscal effects
are dependent upon the specifics of government policy over a long time period, which means that
the net fiscal impact of immigration could be negative while the economic benefit is
simultaneously positive. Looking at the results of all of these studies,the fiscal impacts of
immigration are mostly positive, but they are all relatively small. They are rarely more than 1
percent of GDP in dynamic models"
"there is no strong fiscal case for or against sustained large-scale immigration"
And maybe I missed it but I didn't see any mention of "illegal" immigrants in that study.well yeah. One of the main arguments that Sarnoff has made is that a fiscal case can be made AGAINST illegal immigration. I dispute that.I didn't see any mention of "illegal" immigrants in that. It seems they only reference immigrants.Also, for those who want to read it, here is yet another study from the Cato Institute on the fiscal costs of immigration, including illegal immigration:
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-21-fix.pdf
Like most previous studies, it contradicts most of the ridiculous assertions that people like Sarnoff have made in this thread.
Also, did you read the summary?
"The economic benefits of immigration are unambiguous and large, but the fiscal effects
are dependent upon the specifics of government policy over a long time period, which means that
the net fiscal impact of immigration could be negative while the economic benefit is
simultaneously positive. Looking at the results of all of these studies,the fiscal impacts of
immigration are mostly positive, but they are all relatively small. They are rarely more than 1
percent of GDP in dynamic models"
"there is no strong fiscal case for or against sustained large-scale immigration"
Because libertarian think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation don't make that distinction.And maybe I missed it but I didn't see any mention of "illegal" immigrants in that study.well yeah. One of the main arguments that Sarnoff has made is that a fiscal case can be made AGAINST illegal immigration. I dispute that.I didn't see any mention of "illegal" immigrants in that. It seems they only reference immigrants.Also, did you read the summary?Also, for those who want to read it, here is yet another study from the Cato Institute on the fiscal costs of immigration, including illegal immigration:
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-21-fix.pdf
Like most previous studies, it contradicts most of the ridiculous assertions that people like Sarnoff have made in this thread.
"The economic benefits of immigration are unambiguous and large, but the fiscal effects
are dependent upon the specifics of government policy over a long time period, which means that
the net fiscal impact of immigration could be negative while the economic benefit is
simultaneously positive. Looking at the results of all of these studies,the fiscal impacts of
immigration are mostly positive, but they are all relatively small. They are rarely more than 1
percent of GDP in dynamic models"
"there is no strong fiscal case for or against sustained large-scale immigration"
Why is any of this important? Especially the English part. What if they speak Spanish only? Why does that bother you so much?I'm all for bringing in people that want to work. Wait, no I'm not.
I'm all for opening our borders to those who:
1. can read and write in English
2. will read and write in English
3. will buy insurance
4. will buy property
5. can afford to buy property
6. will pay a higher tax rate than native Americans (based on country of origin)
7. will not support futbol
And how do you know that?Because libertarian think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation don't make that distinction.And maybe I missed it but I didn't see any mention of "illegal" immigrants in that study.well yeah. One of the main arguments that Sarnoff has made is that a fiscal case can be made AGAINST illegal immigration. I dispute that.I didn't see any mention of "illegal" immigrants in that. It seems they only reference immigrants.Also, did you read the summary?Also, for those who want to read it, here is yet another study from the Cato Institute on the fiscal costs of immigration, including illegal immigration:
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-21-fix.pdf
Like most previous studies, it contradicts most of the ridiculous assertions that people like Sarnoff have made in this thread.
"The economic benefits of immigration are unambiguous and large, but the fiscal effects
are dependent upon the specifics of government policy over a long time period, which means that
the net fiscal impact of immigration could be negative while the economic benefit is
simultaneously positive. Looking at the results of all of these studies,the fiscal impacts of
immigration are mostly positive, but they are all relatively small. They are rarely more than 1
percent of GDP in dynamic models"
"there is no strong fiscal case for or against sustained large-scale immigration"
So, let's think about this logically. Say the net benefit of legal immigration is 2% of GDP. And this report says the benefit of immigration is 1%. That would logically mean that the effect of illegal immigration would be negative, would it not? So how do you expect anyone to take this report seriously when in this thread the scope is illegal immigration ONLY? IOW, a report that covers ALL types of immigration is worthless in a discussion about illegal immigration only.Because libertarian think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation don't make that distinction.And maybe I missed it but I didn't see any mention of "illegal" immigrants in that study.well yeah. One of the main arguments that Sarnoff has made is that a fiscal case can be made AGAINST illegal immigration. I dispute that.I didn't see any mention of "illegal" immigrants in that. It seems they only reference immigrants.Also, did you read the summary?Also, for those who want to read it, here is yet another study from the Cato Institute on the fiscal costs of immigration, including illegal immigration:
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-21-fix.pdf
Like most previous studies, it contradicts most of the ridiculous assertions that people like Sarnoff have made in this thread.
"The economic benefits of immigration are unambiguous and large, but the fiscal effects
are dependent upon the specifics of government policy over a long time period, which means that
the net fiscal impact of immigration could be negative while the economic benefit is
simultaneously positive. Looking at the results of all of these studies,the fiscal impacts of
immigration are mostly positive, but they are all relatively small. They are rarely more than 1
percent of GDP in dynamic models"
"there is no strong fiscal case for or against sustained large-scale immigration"
Why is any of it important? Or just 1-6? I know you know why 7 is important.Why is any of this important? Especially the English part. What if they speak Spanish only? Why does that bother you so much?I'm all for bringing in people that want to work. Wait, no I'm not.
I'm all for opening our borders to those who:
1. can read and write in English
2. will read and write in English
3. will buy insurance
4. will buy property
5. can afford to buy property
6. will pay a higher tax rate than native Americans (based on country of origin)
7. will not support futbol
Well yeah, I would be willing to make #7 a condition...Why is any of it important? Or just 1-6? I know you know why 7 is important.Why is any of this important? Especially the English part. What if they speak Spanish only? Why does that bother you so much?I'm all for bringing in people that want to work. Wait, no I'm not.
I'm all for opening our borders to those who:
1. can read and write in English
2. will read and write in English
3. will buy insurance
4. will buy property
5. can afford to buy property
6. will pay a higher tax rate than native Americans (based on country of origin)
7. will not support futbol
Then maybe you should stop relying on them to support your argument for illegal immigration?Because libertarian think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation don't make that distinction.And maybe I missed it but I didn't see any mention of "illegal" immigrants in that study.well yeah. One of the main arguments that Sarnoff has made is that a fiscal case can be made AGAINST illegal immigration. I dispute that.I didn't see any mention of "illegal" immigrants in that. It seems they only reference immigrants.Also, did you read the summary?Also, for those who want to read it, here is yet another study from the Cato Institute on the fiscal costs of immigration, including illegal immigration:
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-21-fix.pdf
Like most previous studies, it contradicts most of the ridiculous assertions that people like Sarnoff have made in this thread.
"The economic benefits of immigration are unambiguous and large, but the fiscal effects
are dependent upon the specifics of government policy over a long time period, which means that
the net fiscal impact of immigration could be negative while the economic benefit is
simultaneously positive. Looking at the results of all of these studies,the fiscal impacts of
immigration are mostly positive, but they are all relatively small. They are rarely more than 1
percent of GDP in dynamic models"
"there is no strong fiscal case for or against sustained large-scale immigration"
Because I have experience with a lot of these folks who can't comply with my rules and it's not good for America. I don't know why it seems like a good idea for this to be a safe haven for immigrants if it means everyone else has to work harder for these people's safety and wellbeing. Come on over and help out, but get insurance, speak the language, buy property and more than anything - pay taxes. A lot of taxes. They should be viewed very much like the legalization of marijuana - a golden opportunity.Well yeah, I would be willing to make #7 a condition...Why is any of it important? Or just 1-6? I know you know why 7 is important.Why is any of this important? Especially the English part. What if they speak Spanish only? Why does that bother you so much?I'm all for bringing in people that want to work. Wait, no I'm not.
I'm all for opening our borders to those who:
1. can read and write in English
2. will read and write in English
3. will buy insurance
4. will buy property
5. can afford to buy property
6. will pay a higher tax rate than native Americans (based on country of origin)
7. will not support futbol
Because of this from the summary of that study??I use them to bolster my argument for more open immigration. But they are also strongly for immigration reform (the amnesty kind).
You know, it's pretty bad when I don't even have to bother to fact check to know that Tim just sighted another article to support his argument that doesn't support his argument. I see this and just assume Stinger is right and Tim did it again.Because of this from the summary of that study??I use them to bolster my argument for more open immigration. But they are also strongly for immigration reform (the amnesty kind).
"there is no strong fiscal case for or against sustained large-scale immigration"
It's especially egregious since Tim's entire argument is supposedly based upon the economic benefits of immigration. But, you know, does anyone really give him any credibility on this issue? I don't.You know, it's pretty bad when I don't even have to bother to fact check to know that Tim just sighted another article to support his argument that doesn't support his argument. I see this and just assume Stinger is right and Tim did it again.Because of this from the summary of that study??I use them to bolster my argument for more open immigration. But they are also strongly for immigration reform (the amnesty kind).
"there is no strong fiscal case for or against sustained large-scale immigration"
It's especially egregious since Tim's entire argument is supposedly based upon the economic benefits of immigration. But, you know, does anyone really give him any credibility on this issue? I don't.You know, it's pretty bad when I don't even have to bother to fact check to know that Tim just sighted another article to support his argument that doesn't support his argument. I see this and just assume Stinger is right and Tim did it again.Because of this from the summary of that study??I use them to bolster my argument for more open immigration. But they are also strongly for immigration reform (the amnesty kind).
"there is no strong fiscal case for or against sustained large-scale immigration"
The point is, I couldn't find any of his comments from yesterday. But it seems odd that he would refer to children in that manner. (Though I would agree with him if he did.)Christo said:So, nothing to do with his comments yesterday.timschochet said:I googled **** Durbin and your quote, and what I came up with is a couple articles from a May speech in which he called illegals who served in the armed forces a "pool of talent". He was promoting the Dream Act.Christo said:I can't link a local news broadcast. I'd be curious to know how you know about this particular statement and its context. Because the local news was talking about the controversy around here over Rahm agreeing to take in a bunch of these particular kids NOT the Dream Act and illegal immigrants who served in the military.Or are you just talking out your ### again?timschochet said:Link? I think he was speaking about the Dream Act, and illegal immigrants who have served in the military, NOT the children at the border.Christo said:Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
Tim = #34 --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nr9hjssWwMIt's especially egregious since Tim's entire argument is supposedly based upon the economic benefits of immigration. But, you know, does anyone really give him any credibility on this issue? I don't.You know, it's pretty bad when I don't even have to bother to fact check to know that Tim just sighted another article to support his argument that doesn't support his argument. I see this and just assume Stinger is right and Tim did it again.Because of this from the summary of that study??I use them to bolster my argument for more open immigration. But they are also strongly for immigration reform (the amnesty kind).
"there is no strong fiscal case for or against sustained large-scale immigration"
I like how Tim keeps posting "proof" that actually proves the exact opposite of his argument. Makes my work so much easier.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Great block by the punter at the end there to keep the opponent from tackling #34 before he went in for the safetyTim = #34 --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nr9hjssWwMIt's especially egregious since Tim's entire argument is supposedly based upon the economic benefits of immigration. But, you know, does anyone really give him any credibility on this issue? I don't.You know, it's pretty bad when I don't even have to bother to fact check to know that Tim just sighted another article to support his argument that doesn't support his argument. I see this and just assume Stinger is right and Tim did it again.Because of this from the summary of that study??I use them to bolster my argument for more open immigration. But they are also strongly for immigration reform (the amnesty kind).
"there is no strong fiscal case for or against sustained large-scale immigration"
I like how Tim keeps posting "proof" that actually proves the exact opposite of his argument. Makes my work so much easier.
That must have been Gunz.Tim = #34 -->It's especially egregious since Tim's entire argument is supposedly based upon the economic benefits of immigration. But, you know, does anyone really give him any credibility on this issue? I don't.You know, it's pretty bad when I don't even have to bother to fact check to know that Tim just sighted another article to support his argument that doesn't support his argument. I see this and just assume Stinger is right and Tim did it again.Because of this from the summary of that study??I use them to bolster my argument for more open immigration. But they are also strongly for immigration reform (the amnesty kind).
"there is no strong fiscal case for or against sustained large-scale immigration"
I like how Tim keeps posting "proof" that actually proves the exact opposite of his argument. Makes my work so much easier.
You get mocked because your arguments don't hold up to scrutiny. We've tried to point out the shortcomings of your "arguments" but if you're so obstinate that you can't understand the critiques there's really nothing left to do but mock you.Sigh. The mockery of what I have attempted to argue here, is so predictable, but it's also so tiresome...
You misunderstanding the very foundation of your argument is so predictable, but you're also so tiresome.Sigh. The mockery of what I have attempted to argue here, is so predictable, but it's also so tiresome...