Apology accepted. Terms like 'woke' have been popularized only over the last 10 or so years, and depending on who's using it, it can imply a few different things. But I will agree that they can and have been weaponized, commonly used in a pejorative sense. 'Illegals' has been around for much much longer. 'Illegal Alien' was and still remains, mostly, the official classification for that cohort. To say that it originates with Trump is like saying that mobile phones originated with Apple. They both been around for a long time, just some entity has recently brought them into the forefront.

I never mentioned Trump. You're the only one bringing him up in your comments, as if you're unable to stop thinking about him. You should work on that. Your further error is that you again conflate illegal immigrants and legal immigrants. The ones that choose to abide by our laws are certainly of great value to us. They also tend to be the more educated and skilled. Regarding our abundance of resources, the millions of people living in poverty in the country would disagree with you. I find your last sentence regrettable, as you almost expressed a coherent thought without name calling, but alas, in the end, you couldn't help bring out your *-ist/*-phobe label gun. Almost. Maybe next time though!

You may not like the term and find it crude, but he makes a valid point. 'Illegals' are a subset of all immigrants. You can be both pro-immigration, and pro-enforcement of our immigration laws. Those here illegally exist as a permanent sub-culture that can be easily taken advantage due to their status. If employers did not have the ability to hire these people at sub-market rates, that would fuel innovation and adoption of new technologies to automate certain tasks now being done by the cheap, black market labor. As far as the legal processes, yes immigration here is extremely rate limited. There's good reason, and that is why such policy is the same in just about ever other modern nation. What would be the benefit to the average American to open the flood gates and let anyone in, its not like we have an abundance of resources that we can afford to share.

Gotta keep churning out those beautiful pies!

Checking car seats ands stroller has been free on every airline I've flown on. They do not count against your baggage allowance.

[ ...Peace Sells bass rfff... ]

First.

Well done. I quickly misread the headline as just that, and had a little chuckle. Ok everyone, carry on and have a good day.

Threatens abortion seekers? That's a new one. Perhaps it's this year's 'Think of the children!'

To put it plainly, yes. The safety of me and my family is more important than someone else's needs and desires. That is not to say that I do not care or wish to help those that may be in need, but I will not sacrifice the safety, or put in jeopardy, any of my loved ones to accomplish this.

I had a couple friends with Commodore 64s, so that was my introduction to computers at the age of 10 in 1984. I would play with the one on display at the local Caldor department store frequently with hopes my parent would get the hint. One day, I rode my bike past the Caldor to the neighboring Radio Shack and went inside to see this new computer they had on display. It was big. I looked serious. It was playing a game where you can walk a guy around in a primitive 3 dimensional world and interact with objects and characters by typing your commands. Move rock. Get dagger. I was playing with power. The first day I saw King's Quest running on the Tandy 1000, I was hooked. By my next birthday, I had that all in hand. A year later I got a 1200 baud modem and discovered BBSs, which opened up a whole new world to me. Its amazing how much impact those early days had on me... they were the first inspiration into my subsequent career as a software developer, and here nearly 40 years later, are significantly responsible for the person I am today.

Not quite. There have been recently examples demonstrating otherwise. Google, for example, offers very generous compensation for its employees as well as near spa-like work environment compared to what is experienced in the average Joe's office. Once content at those levels, some workers will just look for new buttons to push and new demands to make. In Google's case, some workers decided they want more power in the business decision making and in determining the clients that they do business with. One could only imagine that if such demands were ultimately met, that would most likely prove detrimental to the company, and said workers would just find the next thing that they want to assert their control over.

Is 'gas-guzzling' an ISO classification or the writer's opinion of all ICE vehicles?

Any skilled tech worker will be in demand and can easily achieve these goals on their own.

Must they build a station every 50 miles, or simply ensure that one exists every 50 miles? My understanding is that each station needs to be located within 1 mile of the interstate it is serving. Given that, I suspect current infrastructure covers a large amount of this goal, assuming again that current infrastructure counts towards this goal. If so, they can afford to splurge a little more on those that are likely to be more costly and/or require additional support infrastructure (such as in very remote areas).

Who are you to determine what is necessary and unnecessary for other people? Keep you head down, do you best to improve your own situation, and stop casting judgement upon those who enjoy more success than you.