|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 13, 2015 9:15:13 GMT -5
I visited Miami in 2004 for 4 months, sleeping between condo beds and new friends bare floors. Returning to France after that experience, having my friend sask me about lessons I learned there, I often told them that Jebb Bush had become one of my biggest fears for the future. So I'm very happy to see him making so many unexpected gross communicational mistakes...
What do you think is hte real key (not the optimistic one) for Sanders to get the nomination?
Because, really, after getting a black president, getting a self professed socialist as president would be a much much bigger step then getting a woman. People in Europe like me almost experience joyfull tears when hearing Sanders debate or speak, as this seems almost to good to e true, real hope for the future.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2015 9:20:42 GMT -5
I visited Miami in 2004 for 4 months, sleeping between condo beds and new friends bare floors. Returning to France after that experience, having my friend sask me about lessons I learned there, I often told them that Jebb Bush had become one of my biggest fears for the future. So I'm very happy to see him making so many unexpected gross communicational mistakes... What do you think is hte real key (not the optimistic one) for Sanders to get the nomination? Because, really, after getting a black president, getting a self professed socialist as president would be a much much bigger step then getting a woman. People in Europe like me almost experience joyfull tears when hearing Sanders debate or speak, as this seems almost to good to e true, real hope for the future. I think the biggest thing still holding Sanders back is that he's given no real impression of how he would function as a president. Most of his ideas are legislative ideas. How will he function better than Obama did when faced with a similarly lock-step opposed congress (which is likely to still be the reality)? Shouting and standing up for his convictions alone won't get the job done, and he'll need the cooperation of Democrats in congress that he has opposed in the past. Really, when has Sanders ever proven that he has the diplomacy necessary to work well with others? That's everything when you are president. If I may make an honest confession here, I don't actually think Sanders can win right now, but I think he can give Hillary one hell of a scare. That's what I really want. I want him to push her so hard that she HAS to accept more radical policy and make promises that will be uncomfortable for her and her cronies. Who do I want representing the US in international relations? Hillary, absolutely. It's the domestic policy where she needs one hell of a push, and a nail-biting primary season is the best way to do that. Heck, maybe she'll give Sanders a cabinet position. How amazing would it be to see him as Secretary of Commerce? |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 13, 2015 9:26:10 GMT -5
How do you feel that the americans would feel if they felt the hope and joy the rest of the western world gets from him, when they happen to learn about him, despite the medias?
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2015 9:29:27 GMT -5
How do you feel that the americans would feel if they felt the hope and joy the rest of the western world gets from him, when they happen to learn about him, despite the medias? I'm curious to hear more about this from you. I follow Sanders relatively closely, but all I ever hear him comment on with any depth is domestic policy. What is his appeal overseas? |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 13, 2015 9:48:47 GMT -5
well, it's all connected, that's what is annoying to me : you can't have a healhty relation with the world as a superpower (owned by China) if you're sick at home. Heal yourself at home, be idealistic, your "ennemies" will respect you more for it!
I feel safer in a world wher america still matters, if america feels good, it's just basic logic. Why would America have anything to bring to the international talks' table when they fuk up so much at home? It's actually scary they still are at that table in a way.
The way Sanders talks about the growth economic philosophy and haw the lack of certain social policies is an unfathomable stain on the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Nov 13, 2015 10:02:46 GMT -5
For any that would like to answer .... I took that test awhile back that someone posted here in this thread, where it would ask you questions on policies and social issues, to see (where at the time) if the test could predict who the tester might vote for. That part wasn't what interested me. I took it and found that I was conservative on policy and liberal on social issues. Which kind of didn't surprise me as I know how I feel on matters even though I keep my politics to myself. However, I was wondering what, for people that may be split in a similar fashion, wins out? If one is divided on conservative and liberal, then what is more important? Policy or social issues? And this is just curiosity, if one wants to share. I read this thread every time I log on I just don't participate much. I'm assuming by policy you're talking largely economic policy. Though I suppose it could also include immigration and the environment. If that assumption is correct then I used to be similar, in that I was very liberal on social issues and less so on economic issues. Which made me a classical libertarian (as opposed to the folks who call themselves libertarians now, which pretty much means either whack-a-doo or corporate shill). Early on I tended to vote economics. As I grew older that shifted to voting socially liberal because I was far more concerned about erosion of personal rights that "economic rights". At this point, however, I am no longer remotely conservative or libertarian when it comes to economics. That's because I've watched libertarian/conservative economic policies utterly fail and devastate the middle class in the U.S. as it has become nothing more that a retro-mercantilism that has ushered in a new Gilded Age. I guess that doesn't really answer your question. But ultimately I figure that the economic/policy interests in this country can damn well take care of themselves. But the oppressed social interests actually need my help and my votes. Thanks for the well thought out post and sharing your opinions and views Slam. I am just now kind of becoming aware of politics and policies. I grew up being told God's government is all that mattered so my folks never talked politics and most of my family either. And yeah policy by things like economics, war, spending, education, death penalty, government aid and things like that. Social issues like same sex marriage, abortion, etc ... And while I may not know the term retro-mercantilism (more than just looking on wikipedia) I as a middle class tax payer agree, I've been in the financial ditch since starting a family. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 13, 2015 11:14:19 GMT -5
So which logical fallacy am I using with this factual statement: "Every single conservative with whom I have ever discussed media bias has gotten angry and refused to discuss the subject further after I told them I disagreed with that talking point and asked them to provide examples of the so-called liberal media that we could discuss. Every single one." So how many of the GOP debates did you watch? Just curious. Nothing you have stated in the instance above is inaccurate, but the implicit assumptions can be. Assumption #1: Every conservative you have spoken with has self-identified as such. It's possible, for example, that the more level-headed ones simply choose to avoid a heated discussion and thus, neither self-identify nor engage). Assumption #2: You are not having an impact upon their responses. For example, if you're leading with statements such as "All conservatives," or "you conservatives," that might actually provoke them to become angry and unwilling to discuss the subject further. My mother in law, on the other hand, has a tendency to begin such conversations in a civil manner but then refuses to actually listen to what the other person is saying. She is polite, non-aggressive, but also completely unyielding in her assumptions, so people become frustrated with her and ultimately refuse to continue discussing the matter when they realize that nothing they are saying is actually being heard; she's just reeling off prepared arguments. If the discussion is less a discussion and more of a preaching or a holding of court, then of course the other participant is going to get frustrated and choose to disengage. When you speak with these people, are you truly listening to them with the same open mind with which you expect them to listen to you? If not, it's no surprise you're getting these responses, even from reasonable people. Assumption #3: That you have noticed and accurately remembered every encounter you have had with a conservative. Numerous studies show that people remember encounters that support their assumptions and tend to forget ones that do not. Assumption #4: That the people you have spoken with are a statistically accurate cross sampling of conservatives in America. This is not to say that you are factually wrong, but rather that the logic is clumsy and has potential for considerable error. You make some good points, and they might be persuasive to someone who doesn't have as much up-close-and-personal experience with conservatives as I do. But my opinions are based on my real-life personal experiences. So I hope you aren't trying to convince me that there are more than a handful of thoughtful, sensible conservatives. My own personal experiences just do not support that at all. Maybe we are just having a communication problem. Both you and thwhtguardian have made some statements that make it look like you are operating under the idea that I think that all conservatives are drooling monsters who can barely operate in society. So let me clarify that. I am well-aware that most conservatives are normal people with normal habits and good qualities. I was just in Indiana for a few days and I stayed overnight with my best friend of 30 years. He is a raving gun nut who frequently can't hold a rational conversation about gun control (I walked him back away from the cliff when he was repeating NRA talking points about Trayvon Martin. It was disgusting and frightening. That kind of thing is why I really do hate many conservative organizations because of the way they turn decent people into raving beasts with their hate speech). And don't get him started on Muslims or Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama or especially Black Lives Matter ... or anybody that the NRA has told him to hate. But I'm not talking about him. He's liberal on just about every other issue. Climate change. Separation of church and state. Same-sex marriage. His parents and his sister are ardent FOX News watchers. I've known them for years. Years and years. I was in Scrabble Club with his sister in high school. I was very good at Scrabble and won most of my matches. But I couldn't beat Rhonda. Not once. But she's a bible-thumper, believes in the bible creation myth, she never heard a theory about Obama that was too unlikely for her to believe it. Her parents aren't quite as bad. I've known these people for a long time, and I like them a lot. (Maybe not Rhonda. She's OK but you can't be around her for more than a few minutes before she starts trying to get you to talk about Jesus.) The parents, though, are very warm and welcoming and funny. They didn't kick my friend out of the house when he was a committed Satanist as a teenager. (He's a pagan now. He has a robe with deer horns that he wears at the winter solstice.) But I wouldn't put a lot of faith in their reasoning skills in any subject that's important to governing. So I'm not saying they are terrible loudmouths, or whatever. Take a closer look at all my comments on this thread. I have made some harsh statements about certain individuals (always backed up with a link to a relevant and recent new story) and I have questioned the intellectual integrity of the entire movement with regards to their critical thinking skills, but usually in relation to specific subjects of which I have a lot of personal experience. If you are trying to convince me that I would be a better debater if I didn't make inflammatory statements like: "And most conservatives won't even talk to you if you won't meekly accept this easily-disproven talking point," you may be right. But I don't think very many people are dismissing my other opinions over such inflammatory statements about the critical thinking skills of the average conservative. There is plenty of evidence supporting the idea that many of these people really are nuts and live in a fantasy world, despite their many good qualities and their ability to function on the non-political level. Neither you nor thewhtguardian has come up with a shred of evidence that flyover country is packed full of sensible, thoughtful conservatives upset that the GOP has produced a field of bloodthirsty, bible-thumping psychopaths for the candidacy for the presidency, and the most-sane ones can't get any traction. You keep making a bunch of statements about statistics that don't say much more than "it's statistically unlikely that most of them have deficient debating skills when it comes to the liberal media." I think it would be a lot more persuasive if you provided some examples of sensible, thoughtful conservatives instead of assuming they exist from a statistical model. Kudos to Rob Allen for finding a thoughtful, sensible conservative, who, unsurprisingly, disagrees with the GOP platform on almost every issue. Thanks, Rob. And I'm still curious about how many of the GOP debates you watched. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 13, 2015 11:20:42 GMT -5
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 13, 2015 12:22:57 GMT -5
Nothing you have stated in the instance above is inaccurate, but the implicit assumptions can be. Assumption #1: Every conservative you have spoken with has self-identified as such. It's possible, for example, that the more level-headed ones simply choose to avoid a heated discussion and thus, neither self-identify nor engage). Assumption #2: You are not having an impact upon their responses. For example, if you're leading with statements such as "All conservatives," or "you conservatives," that might actually provoke them to become angry and unwilling to discuss the subject further. My mother in law, on the other hand, has a tendency to begin such conversations in a civil manner but then refuses to actually listen to what the other person is saying. She is polite, non-aggressive, but also completely unyielding in her assumptions, so people become frustrated with her and ultimately refuse to continue discussing the matter when they realize that nothing they are saying is actually being heard; she's just reeling off prepared arguments. If the discussion is less a discussion and more of a preaching or a holding of court, then of course the other participant is going to get frustrated and choose to disengage. When you speak with these people, are you truly listening to them with the same open mind with which you expect them to listen to you? If not, it's no surprise you're getting these responses, even from reasonable people. Assumption #3: That you have noticed and accurately remembered every encounter you have had with a conservative. Numerous studies show that people remember encounters that support their assumptions and tend to forget ones that do not. Assumption #4: That the people you have spoken with are a statistically accurate cross sampling of conservatives in America. This is not to say that you are factually wrong, but rather that the logic is clumsy and has potential for considerable error. You make some good points, and they might be persuasive to someone who doesn't have as much up-close-and-personal experience with conservatives as I do. But my opinions are based on my real-life personal experiences. So I hope you aren't trying to convince me that there are more than a handful of thoughtful, sensible conservatives. My own personal experiences just do not support that at all. Maybe we are just having a communication problem. Both you and thwhtguardian have made some statements that make it look like you are operating under the idea that I think that all conservatives are drooling monsters who can barely operate in society. So let me clarify that. I am well-aware that most conservatives are normal people with normal habits and good qualities. I was just in Indiana for a few days and I stayed overnight with my best friend of 30 years. He is a raving gun nut who frequently can't hold a rational conversation about gun control (I walked him back away from the cliff when he was repeating NRA talking points about Trayvon Martin. It was disgusting and frightening. That kind of thing is why I really do hate many conservative organizations because of the way they turn decent people into raving beasts with their hate speech). And don't get him started on Muslims or Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama or especially Black Lives Matter ... or anybody that the NRA has told him to hate. But I'm not talking about him. He's liberal on just about every other issue. Climate change. Separation of church and state. Same-sex marriage. His parents and his sister are ardent FOX News watchers. I've known them for years. Years and years. I was in Scrabble Club with his sister in high school. I was very good at Scrabble and won most of my matches. But I couldn't beat Rhonda. Not once. But she's a bible-thumper, believes in the bible creation myth, she never heard a theory about Obama that was too unlikely for her to believe it. Her parents aren't quite as bad. I've known these people for a long time, and I like them a lot. (Maybe not Rhonda. She's OK but you can't be around her for more than a few minutes before she starts trying to get you to talk about Jesus.) The parents, though, are very warm and welcoming and funny. They didn't kick my friend out of the house when he was a committed Satanist as a teenager. (He's a pagan now. He has a robe with deer horns that he wears at the winter solstice.) But I wouldn't put a lot of faith in their reasoning skills in any subject that's important to governing. So I'm not saying they are terrible loudmouths, or whatever. Take a closer look at all my comments on this thread. I have made some harsh statements about certain individuals (always backed up with a link to a relevant and recent new story) and I have questioned the intellectual integrity of the entire movement with regards to their critical thinking skills, but usually in relation to specific subjects of which I have a lot of personal experience. If you are trying to convince me that I would be a better debater if I didn't make inflammatory statements like: "And most conservatives won't even talk to you if you won't meekly accept this easily-disproven talking point," you may be right. But I don't think very many people are dismissing my other opinions over such inflammatory statements about the critical thinking skills of the average conservative. There is plenty of evidence supporting the idea that many of these people really are nuts and live in a fantasy world, despite their many good qualities and their ability to function on the non-political level. Neither you nor thewhtguardian has come up with a shred of evidence that flyover country is packed full of sensible, thoughtful conservatives upset that the GOP has produced a field of bloodthirsty, bible-thumping psychopaths for the candidacy for the presidency, and the most-sane ones can't get any traction. You keep making a bunch of statements about statistics that don't say much more than "it's statistically unlikely that most of them have deficient debating skills when it comes to the liberal media." I think it would be a lot more persuasive if you provided some examples of sensible, thoughtful conservatives instead of assuming they exist from a statistical model. Kudos to Rob Allen for finding a thoughtful, sensible conservative, who, unsurprisingly, disagrees with the GOP platform on almost every issue. Thanks, Rob. And I'm still curious about how many of the GOP debates you watched. I regret that I don't have the time to more thoroughly read and respond to this post, but I know I won't be on much more until tomorrow at least, and I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your response. If I understand what you wrote correctly (and I may not have; I am speed reading and typing right now), then you are saying "Group X is generally unreasonable, and I place the burden on them to prove otherwise." If I understand you correctly, that's prejudism. Not racism, and nowhere near as bad as racism, but you are "pre-judging" a group of people based on your own limited and biased personal experiences and expecting the group to defend themselves based upon that. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. I will give your post a more careful reading tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 13, 2015 12:25:53 GMT -5
And how do these same people explain it's a bad thing (or worse than being a christian)? |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 13, 2015 12:27:48 GMT -5
You make some good points, and they might be persuasive to someone who doesn't have as much up-close-and-personal experience with conservatives as I do. But my opinions are based on my real-life personal experiences. So I hope you aren't trying to convince me that there are more than a handful of thoughtful, sensible conservatives. My own personal experiences just do not support that at all. Maybe we are just having a communication problem. Both you and thwhtguardian have made some statements that make it look like you are operating under the idea that I think that all conservatives are drooling monsters who can barely operate in society. So let me clarify that. I am well-aware that most conservatives are normal people with normal habits and good qualities. I was just in Indiana for a few days and I stayed overnight with my best friend of 30 years. He is a raving gun nut who frequently can't hold a rational conversation about gun control (I walked him back away from the cliff when he was repeating NRA talking points about Trayvon Martin. It was disgusting and frightening. That kind of thing is why I really do hate many conservative organizations because of the way they turn decent people into raving beasts with their hate speech). And don't get him started on Muslims or Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama or especially Black Lives Matter ... or anybody that the NRA has told him to hate. But I'm not talking about him. He's liberal on just about every other issue. Climate change. Separation of church and state. Same-sex marriage. His parents and his sister are ardent FOX News watchers. I've known them for years. Years and years. I was in Scrabble Club with his sister in high school. I was very good at Scrabble and won most of my matches. But I couldn't beat Rhonda. Not once. But she's a bible-thumper, believes in the bible creation myth, she never heard a theory about Obama that was too unlikely for her to believe it. Her parents aren't quite as bad. I've known these people for a long time, and I like them a lot. (Maybe not Rhonda. She's OK but you can't be around her for more than a few minutes before she starts trying to get you to talk about Jesus.) The parents, though, are very warm and welcoming and funny. They didn't kick my friend out of the house when he was a committed Satanist as a teenager. (He's a pagan now. He has a robe with deer horns that he wears at the winter solstice.) But I wouldn't put a lot of faith in their reasoning skills in any subject that's important to governing. So I'm not saying they are terrible loudmouths, or whatever. Take a closer look at all my comments on this thread. I have made some harsh statements about certain individuals (always backed up with a link to a relevant and recent new story) and I have questioned the intellectual integrity of the entire movement with regards to their critical thinking skills, but usually in relation to specific subjects of which I have a lot of personal experience. If you are trying to convince me that I would be a better debater if I didn't make inflammatory statements like: "And most conservatives won't even talk to you if you won't meekly accept this easily-disproven talking point," you may be right. But I don't think very many people are dismissing my other opinions over such inflammatory statements about the critical thinking skills of the average conservative. There is plenty of evidence supporting the idea that many of these people really are nuts and live in a fantasy world, despite their many good qualities and their ability to function on the non-political level. Neither you nor thewhtguardian has come up with a shred of evidence that flyover country is packed full of sensible, thoughtful conservatives upset that the GOP has produced a field of bloodthirsty, bible-thumping psychopaths for the candidacy for the presidency, and the most-sane ones can't get any traction. You keep making a bunch of statements about statistics that don't say much more than "it's statistically unlikely that most of them have deficient debating skills when it comes to the liberal media." I think it would be a lot more persuasive if you provided some examples of sensible, thoughtful conservatives instead of assuming they exist from a statistical model. Kudos to Rob Allen for finding a thoughtful, sensible conservative, who, unsurprisingly, disagrees with the GOP platform on almost every issue. Thanks, Rob. And I'm still curious about how many of the GOP debates you watched. To sum this up : Ha!!!! You got beat by a girl!!!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 13, 2015 13:09:18 GMT -5
You make some good points, and they might be persuasive to someone who doesn't have as much up-close-and-personal experience with conservatives as I do. But my opinions are based on my real-life personal experiences. So I hope you aren't trying to convince me that there are more than a handful of thoughtful, sensible conservatives. My own personal experiences just do not support that at all. Maybe we are just having a communication problem. Both you and thwhtguardian have made some statements that make it look like you are operating under the idea that I think that all conservatives are drooling monsters who can barely operate in society. So let me clarify that. I am well-aware that most conservatives are normal people with normal habits and good qualities. I was just in Indiana for a few days and I stayed overnight with my best friend of 30 years. He is a raving gun nut who frequently can't hold a rational conversation about gun control (I walked him back away from the cliff when he was repeating NRA talking points about Trayvon Martin. It was disgusting and frightening. That kind of thing is why I really do hate many conservative organizations because of the way they turn decent people into raving beasts with their hate speech). And don't get him started on Muslims or Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama or especially Black Lives Matter ... or anybody that the NRA has told him to hate. But I'm not talking about him. He's liberal on just about every other issue. Climate change. Separation of church and state. Same-sex marriage. His parents and his sister are ardent FOX News watchers. I've known them for years. Years and years. I was in Scrabble Club with his sister in high school. I was very good at Scrabble and won most of my matches. But I couldn't beat Rhonda. Not once. But she's a bible-thumper, believes in the bible creation myth, she never heard a theory about Obama that was too unlikely for her to believe it. Her parents aren't quite as bad. I've known these people for a long time, and I like them a lot. (Maybe not Rhonda. She's OK but you can't be around her for more than a few minutes before she starts trying to get you to talk about Jesus.) The parents, though, are very warm and welcoming and funny. They didn't kick my friend out of the house when he was a committed Satanist as a teenager. (He's a pagan now. He has a robe with deer horns that he wears at the winter solstice.) But I wouldn't put a lot of faith in their reasoning skills in any subject that's important to governing. So I'm not saying they are terrible loudmouths, or whatever. Take a closer look at all my comments on this thread. I have made some harsh statements about certain individuals (always backed up with a link to a relevant and recent new story) and I have questioned the intellectual integrity of the entire movement with regards to their critical thinking skills, but usually in relation to specific subjects of which I have a lot of personal experience. If you are trying to convince me that I would be a better debater if I didn't make inflammatory statements like: "And most conservatives won't even talk to you if you won't meekly accept this easily-disproven talking point," you may be right. But I don't think very many people are dismissing my other opinions over such inflammatory statements about the critical thinking skills of the average conservative. There is plenty of evidence supporting the idea that many of these people really are nuts and live in a fantasy world, despite their many good qualities and their ability to function on the non-political level. Neither you nor thewhtguardian has come up with a shred of evidence that flyover country is packed full of sensible, thoughtful conservatives upset that the GOP has produced a field of bloodthirsty, bible-thumping psychopaths for the candidacy for the presidency, and the most-sane ones can't get any traction. You keep making a bunch of statements about statistics that don't say much more than "it's statistically unlikely that most of them have deficient debating skills when it comes to the liberal media." I think it would be a lot more persuasive if you provided some examples of sensible, thoughtful conservatives instead of assuming they exist from a statistical model. Kudos to Rob Allen for finding a thoughtful, sensible conservative, who, unsurprisingly, disagrees with the GOP platform on almost every issue. Thanks, Rob. And I'm still curious about how many of the GOP debates you watched. I regret that I don't have the time to more thoroughly read and respond to this post, but I know I won't be on much more until tomorrow at least, and I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your response. If I understand what you wrote correctly (and I may not have; I am speed reading and typing right now), then you are saying "Group X is generally unreasonable, and I place the burden on them to prove otherwise." If I understand you correctly, that's prejudism. Not racism, and nowhere near as bad as racism, but you are "pre-judging" a group of people based on your own limited and biased personal experiences and expecting the group to defend themselves based upon that. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. I will give your post a more careful reading tomorrow. Um, am I prejudging them? Or am I forming my opinions based on forty years of experience? And please note, please please please, once again note (as this has been ignored and mischaracterized over and over again) I am not saying "there is no such thing as a sensible, thoughtful conservatives." (Again, I want to stress this once again to cut down on the straw-manning.) I am saying that, in my experience, they are very rare. If I meet a conservative and start to have a conversation, I don't prejudge them. They have every opportunity to make valid points and not almost immediately revert to sophistry, logical fallacies, hate speech and talking points. It's hardly my fault that they disappoint me every time. I would love love love to meet a modern conservative that had some well-developed critical thinking skills for more than few subjects. It would be very refreshing. If you want to follow this line of reasoning about me being "prejudiced" because I have been drawing conclusions from the evidence of my own eyes and ears for forty years, go right ahead. I think your time might be better used in finding actual thoughtful, sensible conservatives than to speculate that, statistically, there must be a bunch of them. Seeing is believing. Yeah. I'm a hard sell. I wasn't always this bad. The early Bush years were particularly hard with the GOP leaders almost across the board calling people like me traitors and I don't remember very many thoughtful, sensible conservatives speaking up and saying "They aren't traitors just because they're against the war." I persuaded my mother to admit that they shouldn't be shouting "treason" at dissenters. And then she voted for them anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 13, 2015 13:18:10 GMT -5
To sum this up : Ha!!!! You got beat by a girl!!!!! A creationist, birther, conspiracy theorist who could still wipe the floor with me at Scrabble. She probably could have been a neurosurgeon if she had been willing to spend that much time at a college that wasn't specifically sanctioned by her church. She became a paramedic. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 13, 2015 13:40:07 GMT -5
I really shouldn't tell this story. I'm not including this as any kind of proof of anything. It's just ... it's just so Rhonda!
My best friend was talking with his father about an article that he had read about the declining bat population in the Midwest. Rhonda overheard and asked "Do bats eat bees?"
My friend was like "What?"
Rhonda said "Well, I know that bees are in decline all over and I thought maybe the Lord was culling the bats so they won't starve with all the bees gone."
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 13, 2015 14:45:00 GMT -5
|
|
