PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: bflynn on October 02, 2018, 08:33:57 PM
-
There is only scant mention of CBF on the politics page and only one more article about Kavanaugh
They seem to have turned their attention elsewhere.
-
There is only scant mention of CBF on the politics page and only one more article about Kavanaugh
They seem to have turned their attention elsewhere.
Let's see. Their Russia! Russia! Russia! narrative has blown up in their face. The Mueller investigation has and is going nowhere. The Stormy Daniels story fizzled out.
And at Trump rallies the crowds love chanting "CNN Sucks!". Even this week the founder of CNN criticized them for being to partisan.
And now the reality of the dims stopping Kavanaugh with their playbook sex smears is fading.
Oh, and their ratings really suck. All in all CNN is in the shitter as a network.
-
But wait! This just in! Trump cheated on his taxes in the 1990s
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html
President Trump participated in dubious tax schemes during the 1990s, including instances of outright fraud, that greatly increased the fortune he received from his parents, an investigation by The New York Times has found.
Let the new distraction begin.
-
Let's see. Their Russia! Russia! Russia! narrative has blown up in their face. The Mueller investigation has and is going nowhere. The Stormy Daniels story fizzled out.
And at Trump rallies the crowds love chanting "CNN Sucks!". Even this week the founder of CNN criticized them for being to partisan.
And now the reality of the dims stopping Kavanaugh with their playbook sex smears is fading.
Oh, and their ratings really suck. All in all CNN is in the shitter as a network.
CNN, NBC/MSNBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, Washpo, NYT etc repeat these accusations with no proof, nor evidence, nor facts. Almost always speculation, and anonymous sources. They throw up everything against the wall, and see what sticks. The problem is they repeat these lies so much, a large portion of their weak minded viewers believe them.
-
But wait! This just in! Trump cheated on his taxes in the 1990s
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html
Let the new distraction begin.
It's not going anywhere as fair minded people don't care. Trump is rich, so is his family. Big deal.
Also, when dealing in the sums of money and businesses of this size, they hire accountants and firms to do this. The article in the NYT makes it look like Trump personally filled out the IRS forms. Ludicrous.
-
I think the "elsewhere" is the fact that the myth of Donald Trump the self made billionaire has just been imploded. As far as Kavanaugh, a part of me wants them to put him on the SCOTUS. A nice fresh outrage just before the midterms.
-
I think the "elsewhere" is the fact that the myth of Donald Trump the self made billionaire has just been imploded. As far as Kavanaugh, a part of me wants them to put him on the SCOTUS. A nice fresh outrage just before the midterms.
Those who were on the fence for Dem v Rep aren't really going to be swayed by this nasty partisan hack job on Kavanaugh. Those who are on the left and perpetually outraged don't matter. Look at the explosive growth of the #Walkaway thread for confirmation.
If there were credible accusers (like having a blue dress with spooge on it), it might have an affect on the fence sitters. But - the Dems have behaved so cravenly they've lost all credibility with anyone using objectivity as their guide. Of course, the liberal indoctrinated don't care about any facts, accusations from 38 years ago are enough.
-
Those who were on the fence for Dem v Rep aren't really going to be swayed by this nasty partisan hack job on Kavanaugh. Those who are on the left and perpetually outraged don't matter. Look at the explosive growth of the #Walkaway thread for confirmation.
To be honest, I was utterly on the fence about this until I saw the guy in his Senate hearing. The dude in that hearing has no business being on the Supreme Court. The dude in that hearing has no business being in a courtroom of any sort. The dude in that hearing was a whiny little shit who deserved nothing more than to be bitchslapped by a big buxom biker chick wearing a Hillary mask and lots of leather.
Like I said, appoint him. The Blue Wave could use a good push.
-
To be honest, I was utterly on the fence about this until I saw the guy in his Senate hearing. The dude in that hearing has no business being on the Supreme Court. The dude in that hearing has no business being in a courtroom of any sort. The dude in that hearing was a whiny little shit who deserved nothing more than to be bitchslapped by a big buxom biker chick wearing a Hillary mask and lots of leather.
Like I said, appoint him. The Blue Wave could use a good push.
So let's go on the record and say the perfesser is a sexual predator. Let's get some of his past students to make statements about how he sexual abused them in the course of his employment with the university.
Of course the perfesser will deny it, but no matter as it's now "guilty until proven innocent", and we will put the burden of proof on the perfesser to prove he's not guilty.
Then we'll have the university stop him from teaching and place him on administrative duty, say, making sure the teacher's lounge has coffee supplies and the toilet paper rolls are replenished daily. Also, professional organizations the perfesser is a member of will rescind his membership because he's now labeled a "sexual predator".
And after that, let's drag him in front of the university board where he will be pummeled with accusation after accusation of misconduct.
Think the perfesser will just sit there quiet? After all, if he speaks up to defend his good name and honor, the board can now claim he doesn't have the temperament to be teaching at the university level.
-
To be honest, I was utterly on the fence about this until I saw the guy in his Senate hearing. The dude in that hearing has no business being on the Supreme Court. The dude in that hearing has no business being in a courtroom of any sort. The dude in that hearing was a whiny little shit who deserved nothing more than to be bitchslapped by a big buxom biker chick wearing a Hillary mask and lots of leather.
Are you talking about Booker or Feinstein? Neither of them are up to be on the Supreme Court. But I agree with your assessment of both of them.
-
To be honest, I was utterly on the fence about this until I saw the guy in his Senate hearing. The dude in that hearing has no business being on the Supreme Court. The dude in that hearing has no business being in a courtroom of any sort. The dude in that hearing was a whiny little shit who deserved nothing more than to be bitchslapped by a big buxom biker chick wearing a Hillary mask and lots of leather.
Like I said, appoint him. The Blue Wave could use a good push.
Classic libbie playbook. The accusations won’t fly, so ... hey, let’s attack CHARACTER! Now I see the lefties whining that he’s too “sharp” and “angry” to be a Justice! Toss in a few judgemental adjectives and labels and run it all 24/7 on CNN’s banner.
What you don’t seem to be getting here is that this farce has raised most normal peoples’ awareness that the left has gone beyond the pale, and that any of us could be the next burning carcass swinging on the Dim’s lynching tree. Wake up.
-
To be honest, I was utterly on the fence about this until I saw the guy in his Senate hearing. The dude in that hearing has no business being on the Supreme Court. The dude in that hearing has no business being in a courtroom of any sort. The dude in that hearing was a whiny little shit who deserved nothing more than to be bitchslapped by a big buxom biker chick wearing a Hillary mask and lots of leather.
Like I said, appoint him. The Blue Wave could use a good push.
I doubt you could be honest if your life depended on it.
Once your communist masters tell you your opinion, you seem incapable of thinking about anything else.
It’s just sound bites and bullshit, from you, mikey.
-
To be honest, I was utterly on the fence about this until I saw the guy in his Senate hearing. The dude in that hearing has no business being on the Supreme Court. The dude in that hearing has no business being in a courtroom of any sort. The dude in that hearing was a whiny little shit who deserved nothing more than to be bitchslapped by a big buxom biker chick wearing a Hillary mask and lots of leather.
Like I said, appoint him. The Blue Wave could use a good push.
Well, alrighty. I was on the fence at the time he was chosen(way, way before Ford) due to his "baggage"(literal quote). Not knowing that the Dems would have this kind of attack going. Also, I was ready to stick a fork in him when I saw his character on display at the start of his testimony. But then I realized pretty quickly that I was the one being unfair, and biased. That I sat and listened to the accuser, and I commiserated with her, and I thought that she likely was the victim of some kind of teen attack or assault. Notwithstanding, that her character was about as disgusting as I've seen in a 15YO girl. i.e. - way underage drinking, wanting to screw 56 MEN before college, slutty pictures, etc. So - it was hypocritical that I not offer the same hearing, and deliberation to Kavanaugh. I got off to the same kind of start that you are displaying now, after they've both been heard.
Which leads me to assess - that you were never really on the fence. You were willing to hear what he said, but not the content of his testimony, just as you(and I) fully bought into the testimony of Ford. You've been blinded as I was by the weakness and effete behaviors. Would I have been the same, given those circumstance? Would I have been domineering and forceful? Hard to say, I've never been in that kind of position.
If you were, as you say objective at the start, it's a sad thing to say that his demeanor during the testimony has swayed you away from him. Under the typical conditions of a lawyer, or jurist, or judge, where jurisprudence is to be weighed in the absence of passion, I guess I see your point. But - we are NOT talking about his jurisprudence here! We are talking about a personal attack of the most venal kind, filled with personal rancor, passion, rhetoric, argument, invective, and yes - political partisanship designed to use the nastiest form of male denigration short of murder.
In short, I don't like whiny men either. But - if he is guilty of what she said, then the Dems have taken the wrong turn at every step of the way to induce impartial and judicious or objective results. Ford sending her letter to the leading political member of the committee, refusing to be acknowledged, waiting until the end of advise and consent, leaking, assigning highly partisan lawyers to the victim, publishing rumor and hearsay, failure to research, shoddy testimony, and a dozen other ways the left has mucked this up. If you can't see that, and you still have a problem with his emotions on the stand - no one can help you.
-
Sorry, I can't blame Ford even one iota. She got past a horrifying experience to make a personal success for herself. I doubt she wanted to get dragged into a national shitstorm. I guess my thinking is if I knew someone being nominated for high office had committed a crime, I'd feel it my duty to say something.
And I know one thing about lawyers. How do you tell a lawyer is lying? His/her lips are moving. There's a reason there are so many lawyer jokes. I don't trust Kavanaugh to tell the truth at all. Put another way, who's more trustworthy, a college professor or a lawyer? I suppose I shouldn't put it that way since you guys all hate college professors and would like to see us all strung up. Surprised you like lawyers that much though.
-
Sorry, I can't blame Ford even one iota. She got past a horrifying experience to make a personal success for herself. I doubt she wanted to get dragged into a national shitstorm. I guess my thinking is if I knew someone being nominated for high office had committed a crime, I'd feel it my duty to say something.
Allegations absent any evidence does not make a high crime. If she tried to legally file charges they would be thrown out on the face of it. She knows that, and her activist attorneys know it, that's why no charges were ever filed.
And I know one thing about lawyers. How do you tell a lawyer is lying? His/her lips are moving. There's a reason there are so many lawyer jokes. I don't trust Kavanaugh to tell the truth at all. Put another way, who's more trustworthy, a college professor or a lawyer? I suppose I shouldn't put it that way since you guys all hate college professors and would like to see us all strung up. Surprised you like lawyers that much though.
The reviews from your former students clearly demonstrate your temperament as an educator. Since you obviously believe allegations equal guilt, we'll leave it at that.
-
I didn't say I had any blame for Ford. I can't say I've seen anyone here blame Ford for her actions. She got dragged into this by all the conniving Dem pols. Congrats to her for overcoming her horrifying experience.
In fact, I find it well - amazing that she was so resilient that only a few days after this so called 'fear for my life' experience, she walked up to one of the guys in the room, and in a congenial way, right in the parking lot of a Safeway store said "hi" to him. She didn't scream, point finger, tell an adult, her parent, a cop, or in any way indicate that the boy had been part of an attack that had tried to rape and kill her.
This is not blame, but - is this account believable? Would a 15YO girl who had been subjected to this violent assault walk up to the attackers best friend and say "hi"?
I also don't blame her for speaking up. But - why not call the authorities? The number for the FBI is well know. If she wanted to press charges, the number for the Potomac police can be found with a 20 second google search. Why speak up, and remain anonymous? Fear of reprisal, or fear of having to defend your accusation? And her defense of her accusation has changed more than 14 times since the letter was offered up. Most of those changes - after the all-star Democratic spin-masters have coached her perfectly. Hmmmmm?
No, I don't blame Ford for her actions. I'm sure she truly believes her drunken, wild-party story. I'm guessing that she has been thinking of it for years, and years, and it is etched in her mind(notwithstanding she is a professional psychology trained PhD). I'm sure something somewhere, sometime happened to her. And she is fixated on Kavanaugh. Her beliefs and her fixation are not useful when it comes to impeaching the next Jurist on the SCOTUS. sorry.
-
Would I have been the same, given those circumstance? Would I have been domineering and forceful? Hard to say, I've never been in that kind of position.
Meek, mild, domineering, forceful, angry, placid ... it doesn’t matter. Being conservative is all the left needs to utterly and groundlessly condemn. Imagine if Kavanagh had shown no emotion. He’d be called cold, calculating, and heartless. The leap from there to cruel and violent would be made with ease.
-
Meek, mild, domineering, forceful, angry, placid ... it doesn’t matter. Being conservative is all the left needs to utterly and groundlessly condemn. Imagine if Kavanagh had shown no emotion. He’d be called cold, calculating, and heartless. The leap from there to cruel and violent would be made with ease.
Yes, he was in a no win situation. No matter his demeanor, he would have been demonized by the Democrats, and the Media (same thing).
-
Yes, he was in a no win situation. No matter his demeanor, he would have been demonized by the Democrats, and the Media (same thing).
Absolutely. All of this was figured in with the "playbook". Calm, cool? Then he's cold hearted. Heated? Angry with the smear? Oh, then he doesn't have the temperament.
Reasonable people see through the charade.
-
Ecttually, it's already been done. some article somewhere judged his body language as being "guilty".
I shit you not. It's an actual news article on some lib site like Salon or maybe HuffPo. Maybe next we'll have tea leave reading, or a Ouiga board fact-finding.
-
I saw that somewhere, too. Of course, no mention was made of HER body language shouting “I’m lying.”
-
In my opinion, the issue is not whether Ford is telling the truth. Or whether her account is accurate. The issue is that it's possible for people to be ruined upon the steps of the court of public opinion. I don't know what solution there is for that wrong, other than good, reasonable people taking decades-old accusations of suspect timing with a HUGE grain of salt.
Let's do a little thought experiment: Is there any discernible difference between Ford's accusations and that of a theoretical, knowingly-false accusation by a woman who was once in the same room with Kavanaugh but otherwise had no other involvement with him? The answer is no, or not much, I think.
This is high stakes, sinister politics. A lot of very rich people care very much who makes it to the SCOTUS.
-
I also don't blame her for speaking up. But - why not call the authorities? The number for the FBI is well know. If she wanted to press charges, the number for the Potomac police can be found with a 20 second google search. Why speak up, and remain anonymous?
I think I mostly agree...except that Google didn't exist 35 years ago. However getting in contact with the police was still dead simple back then.
My takeaway is that she is 1) not remembering it accurately and/or 2) has become fixated on it as the years have gone by and/or 3) wasn't all that upset by it all to begin with.
But hey, she still gets her million dollars, right?
-
To be honest, I was utterly on the fence about this until I saw the guy in his Senate hearing. The dude in that hearing has no business being on the Supreme Court. The dude in that hearing has no business being in a courtroom of any sort. The dude in that hearing was a whiny little shit who deserved nothing more than to be bitchslapped by a big buxom biker chick wearing a Hillary mask and lots of leather.
Like I said, appoint him. The Blue Wave could use a good push.
He was getting death threats. He watched his family, his young children suffer from the accusations and hatred thrown his way. This is a public character lynching. How do you know you wouldn't act the same if you were in his shoes?
-
Ecttually, it's already been done. some article somewhere judged his body language as being "guilty".
I shit you not. It's an actual news article on some lib site like Salon or maybe HuffPo. Maybe next we'll have tea leave reading, or a Ouiga board fact-finding.
I watched a video that analyzed CBF body language and said she was lying, manipulating and using "cute little girl" tactics. I don't know about the first two but she definitely was doing the third and it sure didn't work on me.
-
I think I mostly agree...except that Google didn't exist 35 years ago. However getting in contact with the police was still dead simple back then.
My takeaway is that she is 1) not remembering it accurately and/or 2) has become fixated on it as the years have gone by and/or 3) wasn't all that upset by it all to begin with.
But hey, she still gets her million dollars, right?
I have put myself in her place, 35 years ago as a 15YO girl. Scenario: Tells her mom she was attacked at a party. They go to the cops. Her story goes something like this; I was at a party last night where there were some prep boys. They were drinking and locked me in a room and assaulted me. I got away, and left the party and came home. Cop says 'ok' I have a few questions: Were you drinking? Did you go to parties like this before? How did they get you UP the stairs? Did you scream, bite, kick, fight your attacker? Did you contact the police immediately? All these questions lead to a YUGE can of worms for an accuser who is a minor(15YO) girl. They are going to uncover plenty of unsavory things about her and she knows it. Better to shut up and let it go. Until much later when it could do real damage... (presuming Kavanaugh was the guy)
-
Sorry, I can't blame Ford even one iota. She got past a horrifying experience to make a personal success for herself. I doubt she wanted to get dragged into a national shitstorm. I guess my thinking is if I knew someone being nominated for high office had committed a crime, I'd feel it my duty to say something.
She strikes me as kind of screwed up. Someone without much resiliency. I still can't see what horrifying experience happened here. Even if it all happened just as she said, all I see is a drunk adolescent boy attempting to cop feels and seduce a (probably) also drunk girl who was present at a drinking party lacking adult supervision which kind of implies she was easy. And even if she was not and was naive, a healthy person shouldn't be traumatized for life from such an incident. But a neurotic person might.
And I know one thing about lawyers. How do you tell a lawyer is lying? His/her lips are moving. There's a reason there are so many lawyer jokes. I don't trust Kavanaugh to tell the truth at all. Put another way, who's more trustworthy, a college professor or a lawyer? I suppose I shouldn't put it that way since you guys all hate college professors and would like to see us all strung up. Surprised you like lawyers that much though.
Us guys all? I don't hate college professors.
-
Us guys all? I don't hate college professors.
After semester, we would get the student reviews. I always like them, because most of the criticism was directed at my delivery, and grading. I took that as reasonable critical evaluation. I never, ever got a review that said I didn't know the material, or the student didn't learn the material due to my lack of work or process. However, I suspect that if I kept teaching now, I would fall victim to some slanderous negative reviews by students. I don't play favorites, and I don't cut any slack. In STEM, there are still pretty clear standards, and if they can't integrate under the sine - I'm not going to push them on to diffy-Ques.
-
He was getting death threats. He watched his family, his young children suffer from the accusations and hatred thrown his way. This is a public character lynching. How do you know you wouldn't act the same if you were in his shoes?
I think you are trying to apply standards of logic and reason to a man that is a died in the wool, screaming, hateful, progressive who hates who he is told to hate, lies what he is told to lie, and pretend what he is told to pretend.
I suppose mickey could fear for his job if he doesn't lie whatever lies he's told in the faculty lounge, by his communist masters.
-
Yes, he was in a no win situation. No matter his demeanor, he would have been demonized by the Democrats, and the Media (same thing).
Kavanaugh responded like a man. At the end of the day, with all the man-hating and effeminate democrats talking about white male privilege, toxic masculinity, mansplaining, and all these other anti-male causes of the day, they despise a man who drank beer, lifted weights, played sports, liked girls, had buddies, farted, and when accused of the most vile charges without evidence, responded like any real man would respond.
Steingar, being a somewhat unfriendly man of slight stature (yes, I met him at a POA gathering at Jay H’s North 40 party at OSH) and bearing what one might call a short man complex, would logically despise a manly response to a challenge from a panel of bullies.
-
Kavanaugh responded like a man. At the end of the day, with all the man-hating and effeminate democrats talking about white male privilege, toxic masculinity, mansplaining, and all these other anti-male causes of the day, they despise a man who drank beer, lifted weights, played sports, liked girls, had buddies, farted, and when accused of the most vile charges without evidence, responded like any real man would respond.
Steingar, being a somewhat unfriendly man of slight stature (yes, I met him at a POA gathering at Jay H’s North 40 party at OSH) and bearing what one might call a short man complex, would logically despise a manly response to a challenge from a panel of bullies.
That last paragraph was beneath you. You were doing so well up to then...
-
Agreed. Out of line, especially for a fellow pilot you've met in person.
-
That last paragraph was beneath you. You were doing so well up to then...
Agreed. Out of line, especially for a fellow pilot you've met in person.
Disagree. Perfesser has, and keeps showing contempt for anyone he sees as beneath him. He's basically nothing more than a troll.
-
When people point out that calling or comparing Trump supporters to brainless morons, would-be-Nazi's, racist, misogynist, homophobes and other such vile and venal nonsense as we see from Steingar as being 'beneath him' maybe those kinds of opinions will matter, since that kind of commentary has been largely missing from Statler and Waldorf I'll not be holding my breath.
I am no longer taking that shit from anybody, and will be calling things out as I see them.
People have been pushed too far and the pushing back starts now. I for one will no longer be held to a higher standard for the sole purpose of trying to diminish my ability to fight - I've read Alinsky and will no longer have my rulebook used against me.
'Gimp
-
In the age of pussy replacing honest, and let the perverts and queer men in the bathroom with your daughters, standing up to the toxic pansy democrats (communists) is considered a crime.
-
I understand where everyone is coming from. I prefer discussion without personal attacks however this board is uncensored and so personal attacks are fair game so I have no problem with it. I just think it might be counterproductive. It's a cliche that no one has ever had their mind changed on an Internet forum but I don't believe that's true. I believe open discussion can lead to growth of perspective. But if there is any hope a liberal will be open to conservative or libertarian ideas, it's not going to be through personal insults. And the reverse is true of course. To the extent I have changed views on an issue to become more liberal it was not because someone insulted me. It was from learning facts and studying the issue. That's just my preference though, so as you were, carry on.
-
I am no longer taking that shit from anybody, and will be calling things out as I see them.
People have been pushed too far and the pushing back starts now. I for one will no longer be held to a higher standard for the sole purpose of trying to diminish my ability to fight - I've read Alinsky and will no longer have my rulebook used against me.
'Gimp
Well, you obviously don't have the temperament to have a lifetime appointment to post here. :o
-
I understand where everyone is coming from. I prefer discussion without personal attacks however this board is uncensored and so personal attacks are fair game so I have no problem with it. I just think it might be counterproductive. It's a cliche that no one has ever had their mind changed on an Internet forum but I don't believe that's true. I believe open discussion can lead to growth of perspective. But if there is any hope a liberal will be open to conservative or libertarian ideas, it's not going to be through personal insults. And the reverse is true of course. To the extent I have changed views on an issue to become more liberal it was not because someone insulted me. It was from learning facts and studying the issue. That's just my preference though, so as you were, carry on.
I was going to 'like' this because it represents much of how I think as well. I just want to add that as a young-un I was mostly a liberal, and I was so effing SURE how right I was, maybe I commiserate a little too much with the opposition. In the short time(relatively) I've been here, there has been massive growth and change in asechrest, and bflynn. I won't bother to critique other more strident folks, they are working through the liberal challenges the way I once did.
-
I understand where everyone is coming from. I prefer discussion without personal attacks however this board is uncensored and so personal attacks are fair game so I have no problem with it. I just think it might be counterproductive. It's a cliche that no one has ever had their mind changed on an Internet forum but I don't believe that's true. I believe open discussion can lead to growth of perspective. But if there is any hope a liberal will be open to conservative or libertarian ideas, it's not going to be through personal insults. And the reverse is true of course. To the extent I have changed views on an issue to become more liberal it was not because someone insulted me. It was from learning facts and studying the issue. That's just my preference though, so as you were, carry on.
I have come to believe that liberals know the truth, but it is so uncomfortable for them that they can’t look at it. So they create diversions, deflections and obfuscations. And of course they must have an enemy, an antagonist, so the anger can be kept perpetually alive. When the truth triumphs in the public sphere, despite their frantic efforts to destroy it, they immediately begin focusing on something else so the turmoil can keep preventing them from facing truth.
I realize these are generalizations, and of course many are walking away from these behaviors, having been awakened at a deep level to the truths they have always known were there.
-
I was going to 'like' this because it represents much of how I think as well. I just want to add that as a young-un I was mostly a liberal, and I was so effing SURE how right I was, maybe I commiserate a little too much with the opposition. In the short time(relatively) I've been here, there has been massive growth and change in asechrest, and bflynn. I won't bother to critique other more strident folks, they are working through the liberal challenges the way I once did.
It's a bit of a few things, I think. I've grown as a person. The Democratic party has grown away from me. I'm not afraid to immerse myself in the views of the opposition, which necessarily means I recognize that some of those views are better than my own previous views, (since no side is always best, hint hint to some folks here). And I'm so f*cking busy that, frankly, I have little time to worry with the entrenchment of my own political views.
This is much of why I let Becky know I don't currently have the passion to convince her to be a Liberal.
I also know that it doesn't work like this for everyone, though, as I've now grown more "conservative" than my own mother and father, who are obviously substantially older than I am.
-
I was going to 'like' this because it represents much of how I think as well. I just want to add that as a young-un I was mostly a liberal, and I was so effing SURE how right I was, maybe I commiserate a little too much with the opposition. In the short time(relatively) I've been here, there has been massive growth and change in asechrest, and bflynn. I won't bother to critique other more strident folks, they are working through the liberal challenges the way I once did.
I'm still planning to describe my journey in the let's get to know each other thread but been too busy to write that tome yet. But in short I can commiserate too because I have some liberal roots as a teen. But before those years I was a devote religious conservative and that is when I was so sure I was right I told people that they would go to hell if they were not just Christian, they had to be Catholic. Looking back and seeing how wrong that was keeps me a little humble in knowing that I or anyone who is so sure they're right, might actually not be.
-
One of my favorite cliche's that didn't hit home until I was a parent; 'At 7, my parents were sooooo smart. By the time is was 19, they were so dumb. Then, when I was 33, they got smart again'.
-
I have an 18 year old. Cool, only 15 years before I get smart again. ;)
-
I have an 18 year old. Cool, only 15 years before I get smart again. ;)
We'll likely see your #Walkaway testimony sometime in the intervening span. I can tell things are not aligning as you would like them in the left-world as exposure to the reality of things is revealed.