BeginnersMind

Not seen that one by Pinker but I read one of his books. Loved much of it. Skeptical of his war trend statistical usage but he still makes a compelling argument. This guy Roesling Makes his own version of the case and is funnier. He passed away in the last few years unfortunately. Are there actual named humans or an organization that is at the hub of this globalist power structure in your opinion? I have seen the Rothchilds as a name. I’m trying to understand if this is a group of elite that have a secret agenda setting goal, or if it’s just a more vague “establishment” of unconnected people. Edit: I see DR’s Post so no need to answer unless you want to expand on it. Seems like the Deep State can be any of the above. It’s elites. It’s disparate groups who share ideology. It’s companies. It’s governments. So next question. The DS believers can hang DS label on any person, group, or act that [fill in this blank]. I believe it’s something about preserving a power structure at the expense of the people. Is that about right?

Tom’s point and your second paragraph are the slut shaming that was bound to follow any woman who comes forward with an allegation. And why don’t women report sexual assault? There’s no evidence here that we’ve seen. The confirmation will proceed, as it should, unless something else comes out. But I won’t stoop to calling her a slut or being “50-50” on stories about how she wrote a letter about Gorsuch that originated with a Q-amplifier guy on Twitter.

Tiberius and B-man in a meme war = Vacation time.

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback.

I apologize for my initial disclaimer asking for a sincere response. The last time I brought the topic up of the myriad of ways the world is a better place today than it ever has been, it devolved into a mockery session (you can probably imagine it). I'm fine with that, in that I don't bruise easily, but it was not a productive discussion. I understand your point RE technology. Some technology comes with perils, and the perils that most concern me sound like those that most concern you, ie, spiritual. "Does this make us better people?" "Better" is not objective but let's stick with some version of we'd know it when we see it and not obsess about grey areas. Lots of technologies take time to make our lives better, and sometimes make it worse for a period. TV, which was a passive entertainment delivery device, is dying. We are replacing it with a medium that is more interactive. One that requires (for now) literacy to engage. But of course, me talking to you via a keyboard and screen filters our humanity one to another. So when some guy here calls me a mother!@#$er and tells me I'm a liar and he wants to drop the hammer on me...that's just the way his online avatar acts. I don't stand in judgment of him--I've been him hundreds of times and used to live for the moment when I could elicit that response (cheers to me: I pissed someone off so much that they can't help but obsess about me in anger--what a terrible thing to do)--but I'd hope we all work to make it better, and improve this new medium. I mean, think how new this is: 12 years ago, there was no iPhone, 30 years ago, I was "chatting" with other college students on message boards on my Vax account (my first Internet appearance is forever captured online as I sing the praises of OJ...nice!). So when I look at the incivility, it concerns me, but it's also new, and the interface may change in ways that help us be people again. That side tangent brought to you by way of saying that there are bad actors, and always have been. But the good people always outnumber the bad, and I retain a rigid faith in them, be they rich or poor. And I also believe in technology being on the verge of solving many problems that have heretofore been unsolvable. Listing the ways is beyond the scope of this digression in this thread, but there are so many things going in the right direction. So when I push back on the doom and gloom here at PPP, it's from that perspective. I am so grateful to live in this country and in this time, with more opportunities for my child than in any other generation. And even as far as the Bills go, they are at least a constant: Always sucking...so it doesn't ever gets worse. Zombie calorie consumption issues have never been explained adequately in all the movies and books. Those !@#$ers walk thousands of miles fueled by Carl's forearm? That's what, 4,000 calories? I can buy the rest of the story. They are easy to avoid anyways: Just slide under a dumpster.

Don't believe they will provide it. If I'm the Ds and she will testify, I'd keep the Rs guessing. Not that they won't be ready, but at least keep the unpredictability factor higher.

Serious inquiry: Don't you think every generation has lots of people who say and believe variations of what you believe? And each one just says it with the groupthink worry that dominates their particular cohort? Whether the rapture is coming, morals are in decline, global cooling/warming, acid rain, savages on the frontier, the apocalypse, the Mayan calendar, the Russians ("Wolverine!), nukes, Y2K? Does it strike you that we humans are a given to thinking "our" time is the worst, but only every generation since at least the Greeks, who had the same complaints? I bring this up from time to time and get mocked here, but I posit that as a species, we've never had it so good, over almost any measurable metric. That doesn't mean that I'm a Pollyanna saying that we don't have problems to solve. It's just that it's human nature to fear a crisis, over-worry, etc. It was really important to be that way when a bear might be in the bush over there--and that worry instinct kept the gene pool alive--but it's not adapted particularly well to the modern world. See, e.g., Prozac, backaches, ulcers... 100 years ago, people who shared my last name were a paycheck and/or bad harvest away from starving every week. Yours probably did too.

Best of luck to you brother. I don't feel that I sowed mistreatment of others, and apologized for comparing anyone here to LaDexter. I don't believe anyone here is anti-Semitic--except him, of course.

Some lughead here called me a mother!@#$er yesterday, because...who even knows why? The thread wasn't even that contentious. This isn't a place predicated on having civil discourse, but it's worth a try. Good luck Poojer.

I wouldn't bet against her testifying. There are many more chapters in this still to come.

At least you didn't call him Hitler.

Because he went to a prep school? What kind of reasoning is that? There is NO credible evidence that any of us knows yet. Still, she deserves to be heard. Not FBI-investigated, but heard.

I sense Ivanka’s influence, similar to child separation at the border. She can work him better than anyone. Hell, she may be the only one who can work him.

Ford has more evidence, but not by much. We will see. I suspect we're 70-30 on her testifying. She will be under a lot of pressure to appear from the left. If she doesn't, the nomination sails through.

They did not attack the middle the last two weeks. So you would rather have those guys and a 6-10 record, middle round pick, and continued cap hell than a 3-13 record, high pick, and cap freedom?I Not me..

Zero evidence of credible story on this yet. Exists so far only on The basis of a single Twitter post from some guy. it is a sexy narrative but lets see if there are any facts or whether it's just a fiction that's capturing our innate desire to like a better story. The thing I find strange is Feinstein walking back her support. That is out of character.

What are you even talking about? We're having an adult discussion here, and one that is pretty civil. You're having some kind of fit. Work it through, brother. Deep breaths. Are you the guy who was calling me "Brock?" What does that mean?

Agree, Listen to both sides, and then judge. Right now I don't know much of her side and what little I do would have minimal credibility to overturn a nomination process.

You picked one point out of the many I mentioned, and you missed the real point with respect to Woods. He adds to Beane's headache because not only did he have to fill a hole, he has to pay the guy who retired--and he lost one of the team leaders and better talents. That is not Beane's fault but it added to the turdstew that Ryan and Whaley were cooking. He could have addressed it but this team had giant holes at WRs, QB, OL, D-line, aging RB, and a CB...with very little cap space to work with. 2018 was going to be hard. It is.

I see you continue to be unwilling to have a dialog.

That's what Feinstein hoped for, but the Rs called the hearing quickly. They will certainly push for a delay. WaPo probably didn't run with it because there was nothing verifiable. I swim upstream of the Niagara River here and believe that most journalists TRY to get stories right, and properly discarded this one. WaPo would have loved to run this if there was some "there" there.

Lying about...? Are you all still on the theory about my Deep State paycheck and how I followed DR from other places?

I called someone here a Nazi? Please tell me where I did that. To the extent that I insulted some of the white guys here who feel oppressed by mentioning Charlottesville, I definitely do NOT think you're Nazis,* and apologize for same. Truly. I was merely trying to say that the complaints of white male oppression strike me as absurd. The "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville was all about white male oppression. That's not some wild-eyed assertion. It's a fact. *I reserve the right to call LaDexter a Nazi, not as an insult, but an identifier.

Do you find talking in memes is conducive to dialog, or emotional reaction?

Why would you put those words in my mouth? I said no such thing.