B.T.W. the little girl on the cover of Time Magazine was never separated from her mother by more than a couple of feet. Her mother was making a bogus claim for asylum. Apparently she thought bringing her daughter would force the border patrol to let her in and turn her loose. That would have worked under Obama, but not under Trump.

RMGI IEWC WYHSOY TYDDPI

Done Click-Click

The law does allow people who enter this country illegally to be turned loose within our borders on the condition they show up for their court date. That is what Obama did. Do I really have to explain why that is not being serious about protecting our borders? Trump is being serious about enforcing our border laws. That's one of the things that got him elected.

done

" Do I really have to explain why that is not being serious about protecting our borders? " Of course you have to explain that. Because the procedure you critiseze was replaced by a teriible and inhumane procedure that was not used by Obama, was not used by Bush yr, was not used by Clinton, wan not used by Bush sr. was not used by Reagan, in fact was never the procedure before under any president.

And one more thing: under Obama 5 million perople were sent back, far more than under any president before him. What do you mean, not serious?

done

Thank you, Penguin, for responding with your thoughts on "the New World Order". Some believe that completely open US borders is a necessary prerequisite to achieving the NWO (economic and political homogenization of North and Central America), and concurrently, US citizen constitutional rights must be eliminated. Thoughts ?

A couple of points. First, Reno v Flores was decided by the US Supreme Court. The SCOTUS reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The majority opinion was written by Justice Scalia and was not just some arbitrary agreement.

Second, the rationale for the decision is fascinating as are both the concurring (Justices O'Connor and Souter) and dissenting (Justices Stevens and Blackmun) opinions.

None of these opinions, not the majority nor the concurring nor the dissent, call for separating children from their parents. To claim that separating children from their parents is because of Flores is made up.

Finally, what some magazine puts on its cover is not the issue. Wasting time on that is a distraction to obfuscate the horrific and shameful policy of illegally tearing apart families.

Probably the easiest ever

JudyHall, I think I already answered your new question. Let's see if anyone else enters the dialogue.

Penguin, yes, you did, and you made good points. I, too, am interested in hearing opinions from those more vocal chatters on political issues regarding the development of a New World Order. I fear, though, that discussion of any NWO requires independent thought, and the associated self-satisfaction pales in comparison to that associated with Trump-bashing.

start

ding

Gee Judy. Your exact words were "Debate please, and let's try to keep name-calling and ad-hominem attacks out of the discussion." Then YOU wrote: "I fear, though, that discussion of any NWO requires independent thought, and the associated self-satisfaction pales in comparison to that associated with Trump-bashing." GUILTY.

helen, I didn't attack any specific person or idea. I simply said that I felt it might be more satisfying to many to bash Trump than to discuss the NWO. I fpm

oops, hit <Enter> when I didn't mean to. Was attempting to end that post with this statement: I don't believe I called anyone a nasty name nor did I use any ad hominem attacks.

Since when is stating facts bahing?

Since the megalomaniacal wanna-be dictator took up residence in the White House. Everything he and his ilk disagree with is fake news and bashing.

I don't understand why such intentionally inflammatory topics are being brought up here anyway.

call commentary on Trump what you will ... my interest is in everyone's opinions on the NWO (see my 6:24am post yesterday)

and the original one 10:41am two days ago. Felt that "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" (meaning controversial issues were going to be discussed whether folks liked it or not), so decided to ask about an issue that intrigues me.

origami2, just FYI, I would have preferred that controversial topics be avoided out of respect for those that do not want to see those topics in the chog, but that idea was soundly defeated.

I would have preferred that as well. I come here to play a relaxing game, not to get involved in politics. There's enough of that on Facebook these days. Seems you can't get away from it anywhere - sadly. Not even here.

A good part of the reason I don't come here to play regularly any more like I used to. It's too annoying. Having most of the puzzles be "easy" isn't enticing me either.

Gretchen, drwho has compiled a "calendar-like" list of the puzzle difficulty levels, starting with puzzle #1 in 2006. You might enjoy just doing the hard and expert puzzles. Here's the link to drwho's page: https://tinyurl.com/yd32df4y

Perfect! Thanks, JudyHall!

done

EZPZ. 10.

Thanks for the link JudyHall. I've been going through the archive, really tedious.

I'm also working through the archives, and I've found that I like doing the puzzles in either chronological or reverse chronological order. Because the puzzles are numbered starting at 1 (March 11, 2006), the FASTEST WAY for me to access the next puzzle is to simply put that puzzle number in the address bar of my browser. For example, to work on puzzle #1440, the URL enter in the address bar would be http://www.ironsudoku.com/1440

drwho, you flat out claimed that 45 was enforcing the law.

That's not true. He is enforcing no law.

There's a 12yo court ruling that has not been violated, that I'm aware of, since it was given. The recent change of policy had not a damned thing to do with that ruling.

I know that 45 said it did. I also know that he said it was "a Democratic law" that made him do it, which is equally as stupid.

There was no law. He was not "enforcing the law." He was implement a cruel, pointless, and nasty policy. That's all he did.

When you say things that are blatantly, objectively untrue, I will call you on it. That's not a disrespect; it's the opposite.