I believe you. He’s basing that on past BBS behavior, I assume. You’ve frequently criticized 45’s critics and posted material painting him in a more positive light, if memory serves. Shoe fits and all. But yeah, few admit to supporting 45. Voting is another matter of course! I think it’s 50/50 that he wins another term.
I dislike . . . truly dislike . . . pretentious lefties, who in my view ought to know better. I feel more personally let down by these folks than by just about anyone on the right. And usually very little effort to try and see viewpoints from anywhere else other than their own. again, fwiw.
I dislike . . . truly dislike . . .people who think they are the arbiter of who are pretentious lefties, who in my view ought to know better.
Arbiters just seem to be a universally irksome force. EDIT: not a dig at anyone in particular. Just an observation of political discourse in general.
Just a couple of pretentious lefties proving his point. For shame. I always thought that Metallica's "And Justice..." got a bad rap. I think Arbiter of Sorrow is one of their best jams.
It'll sound a bit strange to a lot here, but what you said was true. Growing up, a large majority of the people in my Southeast Houston neighborhood really didn't lock their doors, certainly during the day. Typically, the husband worked and the wife stayed home looking after the kids, and there were a heck of a lot of kids. Not as bucolic as portrayed on TV, but not wildly off-base, either. There was an elementary school at the end of our street, and it was jam packed. In my area, what used to be farmland became a good sized family neighborhood not very far from what later became Gulfgate Mall (which I recall being under construction). In fact, one of the original farmhouses was directly behind the large back yard, separated by our chain link fence. Just on our side of the fence was what used to to be the chicken coop. My Dad turned it into lab, already up to his neck at the university and bringing his work home. He put in an intercom between it and the kitchen - "Can I have some more iced tea, sweetheart?" Much later, it became a great clubhouse. We used the old electronics equipment as part of the "bridge" of our spaceship. This was long before Star Trek, of course. Boy, did we have fun! We didn't need the gadgets you see kids with today, their faces buried in the damn things. We used our imaginations and whatever was at hand to play with. It was a working class/lower middle class neighborhood largely made up of WWII, and later Korean War Vets (or both), who bought the small houses (typically around 900 sq ft.) on the GI Bill, something they could only dream of during the Depression, with many going to trade schools or college, again on the GI Bill and again only wishful thinking during the Depression. It was a fantastic government program that transformed the country. Only years later did I discover that the thousands of Black Americans who also served during WWII were largely left out of its benefits, and the discrimination wasn't only in the South. A brief description is spoilered below, and worth reading. from Wikipedia: Spoiler African American veterans benefited less than others from the G.I. Bill. The G.I. Bill aimed to help American World War II veterans adjust to civilian life by providing them with benefits including low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans and financial support. African Americans did not benefit nearly as much as White Americans. Historian Ira Katznelson argues that "the law was deliberately designed to accommodate Jim Crow".[1] In the New York and northern New Jersey suburbs 67,000 mortgages were insured by the G.I. Bill, but fewer than 100 were taken out by non-whites.[2][3] Additionally, banks and mortgage agencies refused loans to blacks, making the G.I. Bill even less effective for blacks.[4] Once they returned from the war, blacks faced discrimination and poverty, which represented a barrier to harnessing the benefits of the G.I. Bill, because labor and income were immediately needed at home. Most southern university principals refused to admit blacks until the Civil Rights revolution. Segregation was legally mandated in that region. Colleges accepting blacks in the South initially numbered 100. Those institutions were of lower quality, with 28 of them classified as sub-baccalaureate. Only seven states offered postbaccalaureate training, while no accredited engineering or doctoral programs were available for blacks. These institutions were all smaller than white or nonsegregated universities, often facing a lack of resources.[5] By 1946, only one fifth of the 100,000 blacks who had applied for educational benefits had been registered in college.[6] Furthermore, historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) came under increased pressure as rising enrollments and strained resources forced them to turn away an estimated 20,000 veterans. HBCUs were already the poorest colleges. HBCU resources were stretched even thinner when veterans’ demands necessitated an expansion in the curriculum beyond the traditional "preach and teach" course of study.[4] Though blacks encountered many obstacles in their pursuit of G.I. benefits, the bill greatly expanded the population of African Americans attending college and graduate school. In 1940, enrollment at Black colleges was 1.08% of total U.S. college enrollment. By 1950 it had increased to 3.6%. However, these gains were limited almost exclusively to Northern states, and the educational and economic gap between white and black nationally, widened under the effects of the G.I. Bill.[7] With 79 percent of the black population living in southern states, educational gains were limited to a small part of black America.[4] Your opinion is certainly worth something to me, Os, and I hope what you're saying is true and not an exercise in self-delusion. I've got to say, however, that you've done a decent imitation of being a "trump supporter," or at least a "trump defender" (and what is the difference?) in the forum, in my opinion, even if you don't view yourself that way. Perhaps your eyes have been opened. A lot of eyes have been opened over the last year or so, at least that's been my experience in "real life." I have friends and relatives I talk with that supported him in 2016 because he had an "R" next to his name, which I can understand. There were others who voted for him because they simply "couldn't stand Hillary." Seems that at the time of the 2016 election, they forgot things like the Supreme Court, the EPA, global warming, foreign policy, and so much more that Ms Clinton would have handled far better, regardless of one's opinion of her. Now? With the evidence of his performance in office staring them in the face everyday? They no longer do. Some of those weren't conservative Republicans or independent voters, either, but Democrats who voted for trump. There are still some here that view themselves as "liberal," yet would rather see trump reelected to "teach the Democratic Party a lesson," should the candidate of their preference not win the nomination. Short-sighted ignorance writ large, in my opinion.
https://ktla.com/2019/09/25/acting-...e-house-restricted-testimony-washington-post/ Acting Spy Chief Joseph Maguire Denies He Threatened to Resign If White House Restricted Testimony Oh I get it. He's lying too right?
Just a little clarification. I didn't say the tweet was true. I said that him testifying didn't mean it was false. I'll take him at his word that he didn't threaten that.
I have some sympathy for Maguire. Imagine being some career schmoe who has better things to worry about, yet gets dragged into this circus with the goal of not alienating either political side. He just got the nod in August. It could've easily been Dan Coats at the hotseat. We are slowly revealing our cracks to the world and it's upon us to fix it. Not good.
No, it depends on if the argument being put forward about why something is false is a valid argument. As I said, I will take the guy at his word.
The tweet said and I quote: His testimony is: If you're having trouble understanding why his testimony directly refutes the CNN/WaPo tweet/story, I can't help you. Why is it so hard for you to just admit they got the story wrong?
I'll help: they got at least one important part of the story wrong, and in their CNN way, they stuck with it for the clicks. I hate CNN. Profit over truth. Just like FOX.
You are joking right? Do people even watch or read what links they post. That pastor compared same sex marriage to child molesters. How is he not a "controversial pastor."?
I was talking about the tweet you posted saying it was false and implied that it was because he just testified.
