Neo

This would interest me. Presuming no ill or ignorance in any of us, I'll ask: Q1). Do we want sports segregated by gender because it acknowledges differences and levels competitors? Q2). What methodology will we employ to segregate? I'll answer for me: A1). I do because I believe it does. A2). I don't know but discussing it isn't a sign of prejudice or ignorance. Discussing it is a necessary means to end #1. 7,299,999,999 answers to follow.

Glad you were safe. We closed schools here in Tampa for Friday. The precautionary decision was made during the day on Thursday. It turned out to be a non-event. I remember 2004. Scary times for east coasters.

I received a robo-call yesterday on my home phone. My local school district is taking clown threats seriously. What curious, through the looking glass, relief. Clowns, Seinfeld and Oscar Wilde.

Ok, I'll break the ice ...

If the 'zipper' being broken is a 'bummer', you're wearing it backwards ...

I've played my share of coffee shop waitresses in my time, yes sireeEEeEee

"See, now," said Katavasov, drawling his words from a habit acquired in the lecture-room, "what a capable fellow was our friend Konstantin Dmitrievich. I'm not speaking of present company, for he's absent. At the time he left the university he was fond of science, took an interest in humanity; now one-half of his abilities is devoted to deceiving himself, and the other to justifying the deceit." LT

Someone's logged into your account. Change your password!

1). Yes, that sense. 2). Yes, that sense, but I think dumb or angry applies to both. My meaning could be replaced by "had the GOP not nominated Trump, the result would be better because some credible (my view) candidate not named Trump or Clinton would be leading". In short, Clinton would trail the GOP candidate were it anybody except Trump. The CouldaShouldaWoulda world is not one I usually spend much time in. I visited for 90 minutes last night. I know little of Mike Pence. I'd vote for him tomorrow if he was at the top of the ticket. Trump's Trump. Clinton's Clinton. Kaine's John Podesta.

Happy Birthday!

After watching tonight's debate, I am more convinced than ever that Trump will go down in history as America's greatest self inflicted wound whether he wins or loses. Cue the "if the GOP could reverse the ticket headlines".

I call those "new clothes".

I don't know these guys from Adam ... I'll give 'em an hour. I get your point.

Opening remarks ... I already want these two at the top of their tickets. Edit: Ok, I wish one of them was ... the other makes no difference. (No tv hockey in Tampa).

Am I in the majority or minority? Am I over the hill? I drove home tonight and found myself behind a Dodge Caravan. The Caravan had eight or so bumper and window stickers. Four were political and supported a particular primary candidate, since eliminated (the candidate's not the point). One of the four had the candidate's name with "Because, f**k this s**t!" Written underneath the name. Large and clear. A dad and, presumably, his kids occupied the van. Who'd expose their kids, and anyine else's, to that? I'm no prude ... I'm aware of my surroundings.

I'm certain you've listened to the 2007 film Across the Universe's sound track ..... sublime.

We all have our bunkers! /Sheepish grin

Yes.

Do it, do it!

I agree. I lump much of what Trump says into a "people who aren't me" corner of his brain. This is a different corner than "people who aren't LIKE me". The former is behind more of his rhetoric than the latter. Neither is attractive. Only one is bigoted. He'll say crass and unthinking things about anyone. When the "anyone's" a person of color, we say he's bigoted. When it's a woman, we say he's a misogynist. I'm not so sure he draws distinctions around race, color, gender or creed, something a bigot necessarily does. Voters wrestle with that distinction when looking for comfortable policy and candidates to support. Add Trump's proclivity for the unthoughtful absurd ("I'll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it") and the wrestling gets rougher. More and more I'm coming to the conclusion that people who support mainstream policy of only a few years ago are hearing it when Trump talks after drawing that distinction regarding Trump's brain. While it's a required extra step, I don't think it's that hard to do. It IS hard to articulate the distinction in a sound bite world, especially when the chief spokesman is a thin skinned Twitter addict. Such is life; such is Trump. Edit to add: Ol' Bill had neither corner in his empathetic brain. Bill Clinton was everyone. His common sense message didn't require me or anyone else to search his brain looking for the corner from which the thought originated. I felt no bigotry in Clinton's State of the Union remarks. Trump's supporters have to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when he speaks and focus on policy. They can and do without being deplorable or desperate.

And, perhaps, he'd not be nominated today. Certainly not with that speech. The passage of time warms my view of Ol' Bill.

Topic .... Bill Clinton and Donald Trump have similarities in their immigration policies. Speeding, free flow of labor, Wall Street, pot .... I'll stop here before someone arcs to global cooling, er, warming, er climate change. Somewhere, Bill is screaming "No", and Hillary's hushing him ... "Shhh, silly, it's working".

As they apply to immigration?

Balderdash twice. "As long as an American breaks a law, we don't need borders". Offer your logic to Ol' Bill. Speeding and Wall Street when discussing immigration ... let's trot out the usual suspects.

Balderdash. Speed limits?