The Radical Right

Posted by

I caught roughly 45 minutes of the debate between Senator Kelly Loeffler and Reverend Raphael Warnock last night. They’re both set to compete in the Georgia Senate runoff election on January 5, 2021. Democrat Jon Ossoff and Republican Senator David Perdue are vying for the other Georgia Senate seat. The two were supposed to face off in a debate on Saturday evening, but the coward Perdue was a no-show. Instead, Ossoff debated an empty podium.

We all know how vital this runoff is, with control of the Senate hanging in the balance. The moderators at the Loeffler/Warnock debate tried their best to get answers. I thought Warnock came across as genuine, decent, and thoughtful. Considering the attacks that came his way, it says a lot about the man.

I’m going to take some liberties here, for purposes of this post, and give you an idea of what most of Loeffler’s responses were. Whether asked if the current president was wrong to call the Governor of Georgia to try and have him throw out the election results or whether Senators should be trading stocks, it didn’t matter. She repeated the following refrain, over and over:

“The radical liberal Raphael Warnock,” “Beware of Socialism,” “I’ve lived the American dream,” and “I work day and night for the people of Georgia.” That’s it, folks. She’s not much more than an empty pantsuit. But she had her talking points and got them out there, I suppose.

It’s the first talking point, though, that struck a nerve with me – radical liberal. What the hell does that even mean? We’ve heard the current president and many on the other side using that phraseology all the time. There’s nothing radical about Raphael Warnock, and to say otherwise is ridiculous. But to the uneducated or low-information voter out there, all you have to do is repeat it, and it sticks. They wouldn’t do it if they didn’t think it worked. There was one radical on that stage, and it wasn’t Warnock.

That said, am I a radical liberal because I believe every single American citizen has a right to health care? Because I believe climate change is an existential threat to our very existence on this earth? Because I think a woman has a right to choose what she does with her body? Because I believe we need to have comprehensive immigration reform? Because I wear a mask to protect me and others from the possibility of being infected from Covid-19? Because I believe we need to increase our minimum wage to $15 an hour? Because I think we should have free or dramatically reduced tuition for college? Because I believe we need common-sense gun safety regulations?

Ok, then call me a radical liberal – guilty as charged. The truth is, these ideas aren’t crazy. I’d go as far as to say that they’re mainstream in that most Americans agree with these concepts, at least to some degree. Frankly, if you want to call any group radical, it’s the current Republican Party – or, if you’d like, the Trump Party, because that’s what they’ve become.

These are the folks who are radical, and it’s time to start branding them that way. Yes, let’s start calling them the radical right from now on because: they do NOT believe health care is a right; they do NOT believe a woman has the right to choose; they do NOT believe in comprehensive immigration reform; most of them think Covid is a hoax or not that big a deal; they do NOT believe in a minimum wage; they do NOT believe in climate change, and they certainly do NOT want any gun safety reform.

Let’s also not forget that the majority of elected Congressional Republicans do not think that Joe Biden won the election and do not dare to say so if they do. That’s radical. Biden won – period. Is it also not radical that most of them refuse to condemn the current president for his pathetic and dangerous assault on our electoral system?

The other day, the House passed the MORE Act. This bill aims to decriminalize cannabis, remove it from Schedule 1 status, and pave the way for social reforms and economic opportunity. 97% of Democrats voted for it – 97% of Republicans voted against it. Well over 50% of Americans now believe cannabis should be legal and regulated. We know the bill is going to die in the Senate because radical Mitch McConnell will kill it. Again, who’s radical?

Finally, they do NOT want you to vote. Oh, they want some to vote — not anyone who might vote for a Democrat, though. Whether through gerrymandering, reducing voting locations, or throwing people off the voter rolls, they’ll do whatever it takes to keep their tenuous grip on power. They wouldn’t do any of these things if they thought they could win over the American people with their policies and ideas. Guess what? They can’t because they’re out of the mainstream and stuck in 1955. I’d call that radical, wouldn’t you?

Mitch McConnell, aka Moscow Mitch and The Grim Reaper, remains the number one obstacle for getting things done for the American people. It’s time to start labeling him Radical Mitch and the rest of his party the radical right. Right now, some in the media want to blame Nancy Pelosi for failure to pass any Covid relief. Bullshit. She passed Covid relief months ago, revised it down, and passed it again, only to have it sit on Radical Mitch’s desk – just like the hundreds of other bills he’s never even brought up for debate.

So let’s put an end to this ridiculous branding to those of us on the left who want to do what’s right and start helping the American people. We can disagree on specifics, but make no mistake, there’s one side standing in the way of meaningful progress – and it’s not the so-called radical left.

It’s the radical right who’s responsible for the gridlock. Never forget that. Say it whenever you talk politics to anyone. Write it on social media or whatever platform you can access. It’s way past time that we start to brand these people for who they are.

86 comments

    1. True Jerry. If all you’re doing is watching Fox, OANN, Newsmax, and Facebook propaganda, you have absolutely no idea what’s really going on. Research takes effort. So many of these people just do not want to know the truth.

      Like

  1. I am so tired of hearing about Radical Liberals and Socialists from these know-nothings. Have them read the GOP Platform when they nominated Ike. That platform is further to the Left than today’s average politician of either side. Today Eisenhower would be branded as some sort of a Radical Liberal.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. He sure would be branded radical Dan. That’s how far to the right they’ve gone. As they say, the genie is out of the bottle. They will never moderate their views. Not in the near future anyway.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Don Ostertag, the tax rate under Dwight D. Eisenhower was a nominal rate. After all of the deductions, credits, loopholes, exemptions, as well as the capital gains tax being lower, the effective tax rate was lower.

      Like

      1. And today, with a 37% rate, minus the loopholes, deductions, exemptions, etc.. They get a pretty good break, right? And Corporations bitching about Biden maybe raising their rate to 28%? Talk about an abomination. These people have a lot of nerve. Hell, scores of corp didn’t pay a dime in federal taxes last year, and it’s like that every year. Yes, Congress gave these deductions to the rich and corporations, and shame on them. I’d raise it to the 28% and get rid of a bunch of loopholes. Tax Capital gains on regular income as well. It’s time to set things straight in this country. Enough corporate welfare please!! But I assume your ok with that, because they’re successful, rich, powerful etc…They deserve those breaks, right?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Brookingslib, I prefer to tax consumption rather than productivity. Heck, I would be fine with a financial transaction tax. What really pi**es me off is hearing people who are on welfare programs, which are taxpayer-funded, bit** and complain about people contributing nothing to society.

        Like

      3. You obviously have a problem with the ‘lazy’ people of America. Personally, I couldn’t care less. Are there gamers of the system? Absolutely. In a country of 331 million, it’s inevitable. And, I might add, many of the gamers and cheaters sit on corporate boards and work on wall street. I’m frankly more worried about those people because of the damage they can do, i.e the Great Recession of 2008-2009. Oh, not to mention the BP oil spill and others dumping pollution into our streams, rivers, and oceans. I’m more worried about those people, not the guy or girl struggling to make it in our out of whack income inequality capitalistic society. But, that’s just me my friend.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Brookingslib, people who are on the street begging for money and engage in panhandling are just looking for excuses to leech and mooch off of the rest of us. Welfare programs should be there for people who fall on hard times, not becoming a career opportunity that allows people to get money for doing nothing. On the matter of the videos I provided for Nan, let Nan see them and see if Nan has the same conclusions that you do.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Right? Amazing that his narrative ever took hold. Social media, I believe, is the culprit-at least one of the main ones. That, and all of the misinformation from other right-wing sources.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Reblogged this on Filosofa's Word and commented:
    My political ideology was once considered ‘moderate’. My thoughts, ideas and beliefs haven’t changed in the least, but now I’m labelled a ‘Socialist’ or ‘radical leftist’. The further to the right the conservative movement goes, the further to the left common sense seems to be. What we need is some middle ground, a place for compromise, but it’s long since gone. Our friend Jeff puts all of this into context and shares his thoughts after watching part of the debate between two of the candidates in the Georgia runoff elections on January 5th. Good thoughts, Jeff … thanks!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you Jill! Yep, we’re a couple of socialist/commie/pinko/radicals. Oh well. Let them continue to drift further and further into oblivion. The only way they keep power is by cheating. You and I must continue to call their crooked asses out at every turn.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Heh heh … they can call me all those names and more, but the very next person who calls me a ‘libtard’ is going to feel the wrath of my solid wooden rolling pin upside their head! Oh yes, my friend … you and I are going to keep calling their asses out and won’t stop until we stop breathing!

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Yes, my one Trump loving friend used to use that offensive word all of the time when were texting over the summer. Needless to say, I stooped down to his level and came up with a few of my own to describe him and his clueless Trump cult club. Hated to do it. But boy did it feel invigorating!!!

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Jeff, until the Trump Party ceases using the currency of ludicrous conspiracy theories, their opinion must be severely discounted. I left the Republican Party about twelve plus years ago. A key reason was the GOP’s tendency to make things up, leveraged by Fox News and others. It has only gotten worse with Trump. I have postulated that Trump switched from being a Democrat to being a Republican as he saw it was easier for his BS to be believed with go-along opinion hosts. Please note, both parties are untruthful at times, but it is not a bell curve, with a heavy weighting to the right. Keith

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yep, so true Keith. It’s like Michael Cohen’s take on Trump meeting with evangelicals and saying to him, “can you believe this bullshit?” after they left the room. Of course he knows his base is gullible as hell. If he’s good at anything, it’s recognizing people’s stupidity, and capitalizing on it through the big con. That’s his main achievement. Pretty dubious don’t you think?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Jeff, true. Michael Cohen’s story is consistent with Howard Stern’s comments after he interviewed Trump for fifteen hours. He noted his does give a darn about his base (or anyone for that matter). Keith

        Liked by 1 person

  4. If you’re asking if I believe there should be one, absolutely. It’s inherited wealth, so I firmly believe it should be taxed accordingly. Now, as for the amount, that’s debatable. Many R’s want to eliminate the tax altogether. Some Dems want to lower the threshold. That’s a debate worth having. Right now, the exemption on the tax for single filers is $11 million-$22 million for couples. It’s set up to be that way until 2025. Not sure what it reverts to after that. But it was part of the Republican tax scam of 2018 so I know they raised that exemption substantially. It needs to go back down, in my view.

    Like

  5. Here is an idea I would like to put forward: Keep the estate tax intact but use the revenue for infrastructure and Medicare For All, as well as things that truly benefit society. What is truly absurd is that the people who whine that people receiving inherited wealth would be getting free stuff also want free stuff for themselves. Something I would exclude from the estate tax is a family business. Why should a family not be able to keep the business going indefinitely?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Can’t say I disagree with your idea. I’d have to look into it further, though. Our tax code is so complicated with so many loopholes, write offs etc…it’s really hard to figure out what we can do.

      Like

      1. Don’t get me wrong. I am opposed to the estate tax on philosophical grounds. Having said that, I would not have any problems with the revenue going to pay for infrastructure or Medicare For All, as well as things that truly benefit society. As I said, one thing that I would exclude from being subjected to the estate tax would be a family business.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. I like your infrastructure idea, and how about free or reduced costs for public colleges and/or trade school-2 year certificates etc..?

    Like

  7. To follow-up on my last comment, here is what I mean: Armed Forces members have risked literal life and limb to defend our country, even if there is loss of neither. I would rather pay for them to get a free education than people who use their status as welfare recipients to act like they are deserving of free stuff on-demand. On the matter of free college, I would prefer to hear arguments for it from economists than I would from people who insist that it be free because they can’t afford the price tag. Regarding education being a right, nothing in our Founding Documents says anything about it one way or another.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. IMO, you make some really good points.

      Overall, it’s my considered opinion that as a rule, politicians don’t have a clue on how to use common sense. Nearly all their actions/decisions revolve around getting votes/staying in office/making money.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I do agree that “demanding” something never works. However, specifically in the area of education, I don’t feel this country encourages it near enough. One solution might be that financial assistance could be offered as an incentive. That way those who truly want it would/could be rewarded.

        Like

      2. Nan, here is an idea I would like to get your thoughts on: Lowering the cost significantly, however, making up the difference with a financial transactions tax. Here is how my idea would work: There would be the personal out-of-pocket expenditures for books, housing, which only applies to people who live on campus and meals. However, the rest of the funding for maintenance of the facilities would be funded by taxing stock or other forms of financial transactions.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. I hate to admit it, but now you’re getting into financial topics that are a bit above my pay grade. Mostly I have some very general ideas on how I think things might/could work better, but generally speaking, it’s not something I spend time thinking about.

        I will say this … if there are ways to help finance not only education, but other services that benefit the whole of the people (not just a few — which often tends to be the case), then I would probably support it.

        Just as a sidenote: I’m FAR from wealthy, but I would be willing to pay more to help more. This, IMO, is one of the big differences between the two political parties. One seems to want to expand their own financial portfolio at the expense of others, whereas the other one is willing to spread the wealth around to benefit everyone.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Spot on Nan. I’d be willing to pay more as well. It’s about all of us. Not just a few, as you said. Why is this so hard for the other political party to grasp?

        Like

      5. I think that’s a great idea on the financial transaction tax. Bernie Sanders has talked about that for years.

        Like

    2. Whether things in this country are a right or privilege is always a point of contention. I do believe we can find many economists who say that those who complete either a 2 or 4 year degree in something, hell-anything, make far more money in their lives than do those who only finish high school. Would that not, long-term, pay dividends for this country? People make a better living, pay taxes, be able to buy homes etc…
      Maybe we start out with providing 2 year free community/trade school funding and see how it goes. Then, perhaps we can expand it to 4 year public universities as well, for those who would qualify, that is. I do think we’d have to cut off that aid in some manner for people making over a certain amount. There are lots of things we can do in this country to help make lives better-not free handouts as you suggest. Just give folks a chance. A leg up, if you will. Bottom line for me: it’s time to concentrate on the other 99% in this country. The 1% are doing quite nicely, thank you very much. In a $20 trillion economy, surely we can do better. No?

      Liked by 1 person

  8. That’s for people way smarter than me to decide. But what I would say is that some people will game the system no matter what. Whether it’s the 1% or someone at the lower scale. What we should determine when government tries to help people is whether it betters society as a whole. In 1965-66 LBJ passed Medicare. It pulled millions of seniors out of poverty and still keeps them out today in so many circumstances. It’s about tradeoffs my friend. 50 plus years later, I’d say creating Medicare far outweighed not doing something about it. In my view, we need to do so much more.

    Like

  9. Brookingslib, Keith, Nan, Jill Dennison, Don Ostertag and Brendan Birth, on the matter of free college, I am inclined to believe that economists would be better prepared with arguments for free college, assuming that they make any, than people who want free college on the basis that they cannot afford the tuition costs. If the only arguments for free college from its advocates are “we breathe, therefore we deserve free stuff” or “we deserve free college because we cannot afford the tuition costs,” those would be a bad arguments.

    Like

    1. If you would read again, ragnarsbhut, I suggested incentive payments. Not simply handouts.

      BTW, where do you get this attitude that the less fortunate are simply looking for “handouts”? Sounds like Republican propaganda to me.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Nan, if someone is on the street asking for money and is unwilling to do anything to earn that money, that is an example. Outside of a voluntary exchange, no person has any right to free stuff on-demand, the key phrase being on-demand.

        Brookingslib, here is another video for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHUhNn7SI-4 Outside of voluntary transactions or what the government needs to function, nobody has any right to other people’s money.

        Like

      2. Not all people that are less fortunate are on the street looking for handouts. Many of them live in (often rundown) houses, own a (barely) working car for transportation, and have just enough food in the cupboards to last until the next payday.

        What’s disturbing is that so many who lean Conservative prefer to ignore these people and/or feel that any assistance from the government is simply a “handout.” Yet many of them would be more than willing to better themselves if offered “incentive pay.”

        Like

      3. I agree with you on this. But your comments come across as though these are the people that would be supported through government programs and I don’t think that is the case.

        You said in your comment to Jeff that “people be allowed to be charitable or not to be charitable with their own resources if they choose.” That sounds all well and good, but how many of those on the “most wealthy” list CHOOSE to share their “resources”? Not many, and that’s a fact.

        Further, I have difficulty in understanding why you seem to have such a problem with helping the less fortunate. Just because you, your family, and/or your friends have been able to lie comfortably without government assistance does NOT mean everyone else is as fortunate. Many are born into poverty and will never escape without some kind of assistance.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Ha-Ha! What you wrote is not FACT. It is opinion. You really need to get out more …

        BTW, I’m done, Jeff. I won’t drag this out any longer.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. Nan, people who collect welfare and contribute nothing have no right to talk about people contributing nothing without looking into the mirror. Outside of legitimate medical circumstances that make finding a job difficult, even impossible, people who want stuff without working for it are looking for license to be lazy.

        Like

      6. Nan, falling on hard times due to no fault of one’s own is one thing. This “my family is on numerous forms of government assistance” message from people who want free college and other free s**t on-demand is indicative of an entitlement mentality.

        Like

      7. No apologies necessary Nan. Keith is spot-on, as he most often is, and I hope our friend ragnarsbhut does take the time to read it. It’s what I’ve been trying to get across to him every time. Yet, he still seems obsessed with the ‘free stuff’ people. I don’t get it. I just don’t.

        Liked by 1 person

      8. No problem Nan. Debate is what it’s all about. And I always appreciate you’re insight on everything. Excellent points, all the way around.

        Liked by 1 person

      9. Thanks for sharing ragnarsbhut. But you are not being a serious broker by sending my Fox News propaganda from 7 years ago, particularly from John Stossel. No interest. I know his schtick. I know Fox’ schtick as well. People just want free stuff…everyone, especially minorities, are lazy. Why should my taxes go for someone sitting on the front porch drinking a Colt 45? I pulled myself up from my bootstraps damn it, so everybody needs to do the same. I’ve heard it all, over and over.
        I appreciate you trying to debate these things with me, but really, we do not agree on much of anything. I will not take it serious if you send Fox News BS. Just not going to do it. You want to send something of substance, something where I know there’s not a built-in bias? Then maybe I’ll take a look.
        Am I to assume you think Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are worthless programs? Are those programs just ‘free stuff’? Or, have we all paid into them throughout our lives, and then expect to receive the benefits when we are of age? Not Medicaid, which is there if we fall through the cracks, but you get my point. Would you abolish all of them? Should corporations have free reign to do as they please? Are regulations necessary? Should they even pay any taxes? Do you think you should?
        My friend, I really don’t understand what you’re advocating for in this country. But from our previous interactions, I seriously doubt I’d like to live in the kind of country you seem to want America to be. I do appreciate the calm and rational debate, though.
        We just fundamentally disagree on just about everything. Take care

        Liked by 1 person

      10. Brookingslib, people who pay into various programs, be they disability, Medicare, Social Security, as well as things that do benefit society should reap the benefits. What am I advocating for, you ask? That people be allowed to be charitable or not to be charitable with their own resources if they choose. Nobody has any right to free stuff, regardless of what that free stuff is, on-demand.

        Like

      11. So you think that people on welfare, food stamps, etc.. choose that for themselves? You know what? Perhaps some do. But I think the majority of folks in this country want to work. For slave wages, no, but they want to work and want to better themselves. I can tell you that living near a community here in Southern Oregon, a very small town, I see desperation all over the place, as I do in Crescent City, Ca, a small community to my south. You seem to be saying, let the churches and/or other organizations take care of some of these folks. Again, that’s just pie-in-the-sky thinking. It’s not enough. With capitalism, is not a given that it will work for everyone. People fall through the cracks, and no, not because they choose to. Some do because they’re born into systematic poverty. In other words, the zip code you grow up in can very much predict what happens to you later on in life. Not always, but certainly very often. I say help people as much as possible. Provide opportunities, a hand-up, not a hand-out. Some will never get out of the cycle of poverty, for many different reasons. These are complex issues, issues that cannot be solved by simply letting charitable organizations pick up the slack. I for one, am proud to pay taxes and know that some of that might go to helping people who need it. Anyway, that’s my take. Thanks again.

        Like

    2. My friend, I watched parts of the two videos you provided for Nan. Really? That’s the best you can do? Cavuto has a young twenty-something on-the organizer for the march- and did you really expect her to have the answers you’re looking for? There are a gazillion economists he could have on there to have an intelligent discussion. People who know tax policy, statistics, what it would mean, benefit of society vs. the cost etc…How about he debates Robert Reich, Richard Wolff, Dean Baker, Paul Krugman or Joe Stiglitz to name a few? These are left leaning economists who would surely do a better job of explaining this topic. And John Stossel? I’m not even going to get into him. I’ve seen that piece he did. Talk about making generalizations. Interviewing somebody who’s begging, with signs, and throwing everyone in the same boat is simply wrong. It’s what Fox News and other right-wing media do the best: Scapegoating and gas-lighting.

      Like

      1. No, I mean fair and balanced where each side is heard. Example: David Pakman, a Left-leaning guy and someone like Mark Levin, a Constitutional Conservative, people on polar opposites of the political spectrum, however, both sides present their arguments on things.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Brookingslib, in my comment on March 29 a 8:56 am I said, “Brookingslib, you left the awaiting moderation comment still awaiting moderation.” I meant to put another o, not an r. Can you correct that error and then delete this comment? I don’t require a response.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Brookingslib, on the estate tax vs. free college issue, here are my general thoughts: If people want free college they can have it. However, that should be equally true of people who inherit wealth/estates being able to keep them. Even though it is technically free stuff either way, I would argue that it is hypocritical to claim that people who inherit wealth did nothing to deserve that and yet people who want free college on-demand are deserving of that. If people who inherit wealth/estates have to pay taxes on that, than people who want to go to college should pay for that themselves. If there is an inheritable level of wealth that is worth $15, 000, 000.00, 50% of that should be inheritable and the other 50% can go to the government.

    Like

    1. Interesting thought. My view is that if you inherit, what $11 million? You ought to pay taxes on that. Perhaps the ‘free’ college ought to come with some strings attached? Like maybe you have to do community service or something like that. I’d have to look at what some other countries do. At least those that have been successful at it. I don’t know my friend. It appears you have a personal stake in this? If you do, it’s not for me to offer an opinion.

      Like

      1. Brookingslib, even though I oppose the estate tax on moral/philosophical grounds, here are my general thoughts: If someone wants to go to college for free, people who inherit wealth/estates should get to keep it all tax-free. If people who are subject to the estate tax have to pay that, people who want to go to college should pay the tuition out-of-pocket or take out student loans and then pay them back.

        Like

      2. I get it ragnarsbhut. We differ a bit on this. But that’s ok. That’s what debate is all about. And, I appreciate the respectful back and forth. Thanks for taking the time!

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Brookingslib, I personally would favor excluding family businesses from facing the estate tax. Here is what I mean: If a family that has a computer business wants to keep it going indefinitely, that should not be taxable under estate tax law as written. Just my thoughts.

        Liked by 2 people

  11. Brookingslib, in my last comment, there was the redundant phrasing general thoughts in general. I meant to just say general thoughts. Can you edit that so it reads as I intended and then delete this comment? I do not require a response to this one.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Brookingslib, what if the free college is provided for people who do a community service? Here is an example: Volunteering at a pet shelter. I would not have any issue paying for someone who wanted to go to college to be able to go if they contributed to helping pets to have good homes.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I wouldn’t have a problem with that at all. I think there’s actually a program centered around community service and college already available. You don’t hear much about it but I remember it passing several years ago. But to your overall point, not a bad idea.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Brookingslib, if someone volunteered at an animal shelter, helped to place animals within a healthy and wholesome family situation, I would not mind picking up the tab for that person to go to college. What is truly absurd is how some people feel like they are entitled to free stuff at the taxpayers’ expense with no benefit to the taxpayers.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. Brookingslib, I will ask you to either look in further detail at the video in the comment awaiting moderation and then either approve it and we can discuss the matter in more detail or just delete the comment. Your decision.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. My friend, I thought we resolved this issue a long time ago. I’m not sure what you want me to comment on. The videos? We already discussed them, did we not?

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Brookingslib, you left the links hanging, so to speak. I was hoping to share them with your other readers and see if a rational discussion could be had on the merits.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s