Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523121)

I pegged you more a Pinot Grigo man. Ok, so, this latest variation of your tired shtick is that I lack self-awareness. (Did you forget empathy?) My reply would be, not unpredictably: So what?

Who cares if anyone is self aware? Seriously, I hear that term thrown around a lot, but it means nothing. "Bob's not very self aware." "Mary must have no self awareness."

Who gives a fuck whether anyone is self-aware or not? How is this even an insult? If a person says something, why would I even care if he or she is self aware? I'd listen to what the person said, process it, and if it required reply, reply. If not, say nothing.

You talk about self awareness like it's some supreme virtue. What's of interest is only whether the thing said is accurate and well considered. It's always fair to say "That's fucking bullshit" or "You didn't think that out very well." You can attack the thing said any way you like on its merits. But to say the speaker lacks self awareness means, I think in your head, that the speaker should know better than to say the thing he said regardless of whether the thing said is accurate or not. It's a bullshit metric allowing you to criticize someone for saying something probably true but impolitic.

This sort of squishy criticism makes a slop of conversations by focusing on the alleged tone deafness of an analysis, or whether the speaker "cares" enough, rather than whether the analysis is accurate. Somebody did it couple days ago, saying that to assert Trump succeeded in his amoral approach to the Mueller probe made me somehow amoral. That's silly. The game afoot there was political. Politics is often amoral. To say that Trump out-gamed the Democrats there is simply a factual observation. By hiring Barr, he did so. It was an unusually smart and well considered strategy move on his part. That's just reality. If saying so demonstrates lack of self awareness, what would demonstrate self awareness? To instead say something that wasn't factual but showed "caring" or empathy with people offended by Trump?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 523102)

For the first time I can remember I fear that Roe may go down. Not a joke.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 523126)

This is why I cried the night he was elected. I knew he'd get one.

This is why I sobbed when Kavanaugh was confirmed.

This country could give a shit about women, and those motherfuckers who assured us that Roe was safe were willfully blind.

I'm so fucking angry. At the whole fucking thing.

And now wondering if there is any way that Arizona, Virginia or Florida could get the ERA ratified to at least throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 523123)

If they are at all sentient, they know they need huge turnout of their crazies to have any shot in 2020. They actually got it in 2018 (and still had one of the worst ever midterm losses). Maybe they can do it again.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 523128)

I doubt it. The full extent of Barr's lies hasn't come out yet. That, coupled with Mueller's testimony which will include the recent stuff just released regarding Flynn's cooperation, along with this Roe situation, is going to award Biden a landslide win.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 523117)

I once finished a fat bike race to wild cheering and rapturous applause, which I assumed was for me, until I turned around and saw that the guy on the left in the picture below was right behind me:

https://1d8piv1xedxt3k9gin22z4pqb30-...-9-600x450.jpg

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 523130)

I get it. I'd cheer for him too. But I would make it clear that I was only cheering for him and not for you. And I would make that clear by telling you this immediately after the race. Just because I want to make it clear.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 523131)

I get it. Totally. And if I were spectating at that marathon, I would have shouted, "You're awesome!" Then I would have shouted, "And by 'you' I mean the joggling guy. Not the jackhole running next to or near him who is pretending all the cheering is for him." This would take a while to shout and I would probably have to run next to you and the joggler for a bit to get it all out, but I would do that. Because, like you, I have a passion for clarity.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 523131)

I get it. Totally. And if I were spectating at that marathon, I would have shouted, "You're awesome!" Then I would have shouted, "And by 'you' I mean the joggling guy. Not the jackhole running next to or near him who is pretending all the cheering is for him." This would take a while to shout and I would probably have to run next to you and the joggler for a bit to get it all out, but I would do that. Because, like you, I have a passion for clarity.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 523132)

So really your position on jugglers is not clear at all. Are you the board's Lindsey Graham?

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 523132)

I get it, but this seems to directly contradict your past positions on jugglers:

"I understand your argument, but I used to tangentially know some juggling types back in the day, and they were awful human beings. Constantly trying to interject their juggling into EVERY social situation, even when it was inappropriate to do so, which it was in EVERY social situation."

So really your position on jugglers is not clear at all. Are you the board's Lindsey Graham?

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 523136)

A guy who runs a marathon while juggling is awesome. A guy who, with his friend, plans a "spontaneous" juggling performance at a party, all the while acting as if he never expected he would be called upon to show off his juggling skills EVEN THOUGH HE JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE ALL HIS JUGGLING SHIT WITH HIM AT THE PARTY, is an awful person.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 523137)