The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Well as I recall, back in late Aug I said something about Biden s approval rating being a thing, and there were lots of responses which I read as disagreeing. Who knew we were all agreeing with each other that whole time.
at the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time, an approval rating is not a causal factor. It's an OUTCOME metric. Events happen, a politician's approval rating goes up or down. So why would anyone concern themselves with an outcome measure more than the events that are going to influence that metric? If nothing good happens for Biden in the next twelve months, THAT would be concerning. Not what an approval rating is on this day 13 months before the midterm.
Ok, but...Afghanistan has faded and U.S. Covid cases were down by one-third in Sept., yet Biden's numbers are still in the crapper. So your outcome metric model ain't working like it's supposed to.
do you have a point here?
My point is, and always was, that the sudden, fairly precipitous, and apparently non-temporary decline in Biden’s approval ratings is a sign that his presidency is going meh at best, and this holds meaningful implications for his political capital in terms of him getting things done, as well as the midterms.
Do you have a point? Let me guess: that everything I said is wrong.
mtierney said:
Your reading comprehension is sorely wanting, DB. My last post clearly put forth my anathema re violence. I deplored the burning, destruction, looting and violence in our country — generated to express support for the BLM agenda — because it was criminal responses to national law and order issues.
Violence to promote more violence is stupid — and ultimately ineffective in multi-cultural America. Liberals might be awe-struck by watching this unfold from the safety of their recliners, but little gains become big losses in making progress in race relations.
the BLM events were protests in which some people committed acts of arson and vandalism in response to police misconduct.
January 6 was a violent insurrection attempting to illegally overturn an election. January 6 was infinitely worse because of the INTENT, not just the violence. Your inability to admit that is shameful.
Smedley said:
My point is, and always was, that the sudden, fairly precipitous, and apparently non-temporary decline in Biden’s approval ratings is a sign that his presidency is going meh at best, and this holds meaningful implications for his political capital in terms of him getting things done, as well as the midterms.
Do you have a point? Let me guess: that everything I said is wrong.
it's not wrong. It's superficial and not insightful. And given the midterm is 13 months away, not particularly meaningful, unless one assumes nothing of importance happens in the country over the next year.
And unless you think Manchin and Sinema would be on board with Biden if his approval rating was still 55%, it's not even meaningful now.
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Well as I recall, back in late Aug I said something about Biden s approval rating being a thing, and there were lots of responses which I read as disagreeing. Who knew we were all agreeing with each other that whole time.
at the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time, an approval rating is not a causal factor. It's an OUTCOME metric. Events happen, a politician's approval rating goes up or down. So why would anyone concern themselves with an outcome measure more than the events that are going to influence that metric? If nothing good happens for Biden in the next twelve months, THAT would be concerning. Not what an approval rating is on this day 13 months before the midterm.
Ok, but...Afghanistan has faded and U.S. Covid cases were down by one-third in Sept., yet Biden's numbers are still in the crapper. So your outcome metric model ain't working like it's supposed to.
do you have a point here?
My point is, and always was, that the sudden, fairly precipitous, and apparently non-temporary decline in Biden’s approval ratings is a sign that his presidency is going meh at best, and this holds meaningful implications for his political capital in terms of him getting things done, as well as the midterms.
Do you have a point? Let me guess: that everything I said is wrong.
latest CBS poll puts him at 50% approval.
what say you now?
Well we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether Joe Biden, a known quantity w the American public with 8 yrs as VP and decades in the senate, dropping from +10 to -5 net approval is meaningful. I think it is, you think it isn’t. I suspect you think it isn’t because you don’t want it to be.
Smedley said:
Well we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether Joe Biden, a known quantity w the American public with 8 yrs as VP and decades in the senate, dropping from +10 to -5 net approval is meaningful. I think it is, you think it isn’t. I suspect you think it isn’t because you don’t want it to be.
And you think it is because YOU want it to be.
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Well as I recall, back in late Aug I said something about Biden s approval rating being a thing, and there were lots of responses which I read as disagreeing. Who knew we were all agreeing with each other that whole time.
at the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time, an approval rating is not a causal factor. It's an OUTCOME metric. Events happen, a politician's approval rating goes up or down. So why would anyone concern themselves with an outcome measure more than the events that are going to influence that metric? If nothing good happens for Biden in the next twelve months, THAT would be concerning. Not what an approval rating is on this day 13 months before the midterm.
Ok, but...Afghanistan has faded and U.S. Covid cases were down by one-third in Sept., yet Biden's numbers are still in the crapper. So your outcome metric model ain't working like it's supposed to.
do you have a point here?
My point is, and always was, that the sudden, fairly precipitous, and apparently non-temporary decline in Biden’s approval ratings is a sign that his presidency is going meh at best, and this holds meaningful implications for his political capital in terms of him getting things done, as well as the midterms.
Do you have a point? Let me guess: that everything I said is wrong.
latest CBS poll puts him at 50% approval.
what say you now?
If somehow Biden comes back strong, the Dems outperform in the midterms and Biden wins a second term I’ll be happy to admit I was wrong.
But in the interim, if you’re going to cite polls, at least cite aggregate stuff.
Do you want me to post the Quinnipiac poll from 4 days ago? Guessing you don’t.
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
latest CBS poll puts him at 50% approval.
what say you now?
If somehow Biden comes back strong, the Dems outperform in the midterms and Biden wins a second term I’ll be happy to admit I was wrong.
But in the interim, if you’re going to cite polls, at least cite aggregate stuff.
Do you want me to post the Quinnipiac poll from 4 days ago? Guessing you don’t.
So, the real test is next year, and then the 2024 elections, rather than the latest poll?
I'm fairly certain that you're not the first to take that position on this thread.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Smedley said:
Well we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether Joe Biden, a known quantity w the American public with 8 yrs as VP and decades in the senate, dropping from +10 to -5 net approval is meaningful. I think it is, you think it isn’t. I suspect you think it isn’t because you don’t want it to be.
And you think it is because YOU want it to be.
The potshot king. Hello.
Well you know, besides me, Nate Silver and the Quinnipiac pollsters must really hate Biden. What other conclusion can be drawn from their recent blasphemous publishing?
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Well as I recall, back in late Aug I said something about Biden s approval rating being a thing, and there were lots of responses which I read as disagreeing. Who knew we were all agreeing with each other that whole time.
at the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time, an approval rating is not a causal factor. It's an OUTCOME metric. Events happen, a politician's approval rating goes up or down. So why would anyone concern themselves with an outcome measure more than the events that are going to influence that metric? If nothing good happens for Biden in the next twelve months, THAT would be concerning. Not what an approval rating is on this day 13 months before the midterm.
Ok, but...Afghanistan has faded and U.S. Covid cases were down by one-third in Sept., yet Biden's numbers are still in the crapper. So your outcome metric model ain't working like it's supposed to.
do you have a point here?
My point is, and always was, that the sudden, fairly precipitous, and apparently non-temporary decline in Biden’s approval ratings is a sign that his presidency is going meh at best, and this holds meaningful implications for his political capital in terms of him getting things done, as well as the midterms.
Do you have a point? Let me guess: that everything I said is wrong.
latest CBS poll puts him at 50% approval.
what say you now?
If somehow Biden comes back strong, the Dems outperform in the midterms and Biden wins a second term I’ll be happy to admit I was wrong.
But in the interim, if you’re going to cite polls, at least cite aggregate stuff.
Do you want me to post the Quinnipiac poll from 4 days ago? Guessing you don’t.
frankly, I could give a sh!t about polls right now. As I said in an earlier post, the Dems' challenges in 2022 are not Biden's poll numbers. They are gerrymandering and voter suppression.
A post which you completely ignored.
mtierney said:
drummerboy said:
so, for the BLM protests you blame the protesters, but for 1/6 you blame the police.
Your lack of self-awareness knows no bounds.
Your reading comprehension is sorely wanting, DB. My last post clearly put forth my anathema re violence. I deplored the burning, destruction, looting and violence in our country — generated to express support for the BLM agenda — because it was criminal responses to national law and order issues.
Violence to promote more violence is stupid — and ultimately ineffective in multi-cultural America. Liberals might be awe-struck by watching this unfold from the safety of their recliners, but little gains become big losses in making progress in race relations.
You are clearly condemning any violence related to as BLM protests.
I see nothing condemning the violence of January 6.
Am I missing it?
Jerseyperson said:
mtierney said:
drummerboy said:
so, for the BLM protests you blame the protesters, but for 1/6 you blame the police.
Your lack of self-awareness knows no bounds.
Your reading comprehension is sorely wanting, DB. My last post clearly put forth my anathema re violence. I deplored the burning, destruction, looting and violence in our country — generated to express support for the BLM agenda — because it was criminal responses to national law and order issues.
Violence to promote more violence is stupid — and ultimately ineffective in multi-cultural America. Liberals might be awe-struck by watching this unfold from the safety of their recliners, but little gains become big losses in making progress in race relations.
You are clearly condemning any violence related to as BLM protests.
I see nothing condemning the violence of January 6.
Am I missing it?
no you're not.
Smedley said:
If somehow Biden comes back strong, the Dems outperform in the midterms and Biden wins a second term I’ll be happy to admit I was wrong.
But in the interim, if you’re going to cite polls, at least cite aggregate stuff.
Do you want me to post the Quinnipiac poll from 4 days ago? Guessing you don’t.
You’ve made your point very clearly umpteen times.
What is the reason for continuing to bring this up?
Are you trying to change minds? It’s pretty clear that isn’t happening.
Are you trying to mobilize people to do something? If so, what?
Are you just trying to go on record so that at some future point you can say “I told you so!?”
Can we just let the polls speak for themselves and move on?
Help me out. Why is this so important to you?
jimmurphy said:
You’ve made your point very clearly umpteen times.
What is the reason for continuing to bring this up?
Are you trying to change minds? It’s pretty clear that isn’t happening.
Are you trying to mobilize people to do something? If so, what?
Are you just trying to go on record so that at some future point you can say “I told you so!?”
Can we just let the polls speak for themselves and move on?
Help me out. Why is this so important to you?
It’s the same logic MT uses to aggravate is…keep harping on a negative till it grinds your last nerve. Smelley here is worse than she is, he’s pretending to be impartial… while she’s straight up partisan hack.
Jaytee said:
It’s the same logic MT uses to aggravate is…keep harping on a negative till it grinds your last nerve. Smelley here is worse than she is, he’s pretending to be impartial… while she’s straight up partisan hack.
I don't think it's this. I just think it's someone who hangs on all the insipid horse race punditry and doesn't care about the real life events that influence the polls.
Re mtierney's supposed condemnation of violence -- the contrast with BLM cuts against her here (a point ml1 made, which I hope he doesn't mind if I expand on).
The BLM protests were first amendment exercises protesting a legitimate grievance -- the disproportionate targeting and disproportionate violence directed against people of color (and especially black people) by the police. These protests happened over many months, in small towns, mid-sized cities, suburbs, and large cities, all across the country. The overwhelming majority had no violence.
In some instances, there was violence. Many times, that violence was instigated by the police themselves. In some cases, the violence was instigated by counter-protestors, including groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers (some of whom also were part of 1/6 attack). In some cases, the violence was people opportunistically taking advantage of the situation to attack property and to loot.
Notice how very selective mtierney's condemnation of violence is here -- only condemning that last set of cases, while ignoring the other two I listed. And no acknowledgment of the legitimate grievances the inspired the gatherings -- she focuses almost exclusively on the violence, and only the the violence it's political convenient for her to focus on.
...
And what of Jan 6th? Those who assaulted the capitol had gathered in support of the lie that Trump won the election. While the gathering at the Ellipse was a first amendment exercise, the grievance that drew them was a lie, not a legitimate issue. The gathered to hear Trump further promote his lie, and to hear him and his fellow speakers urge them to march on the capitol in support of that lie. And they did. And when that crowd became a mob and breached the capitol, interrupting the constitutional process and threatening the safety of our top elected officials, and resulting in several deaths, Trump did nothing to ease the situation. He declined to send help, was reportedly excited at seeing how the mob had responded to his words, and when Rep. McCarthy called him to urgently request help, Trump responded "Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are."
And Trump is still at it! He is still pushing the cause that led to the attack. At his urging, state GOP organizations have been pushing fradulent "audits" and taking steps to make it easier to overturn future elections. The very few Republicans who have dared to condemn this have been shunned by the party, drawing primary challenges, censure by state and local GOP parties, and pushed out of leadership positions.
Where has mtierney been on this? Has she condemned the lies Trump pushed, and continues to push, that led to this violence? Has she indicated any support whatsoever for any of the ongoing investigations being done to prevent a recurrence of this violence? Has she spoken up in defense of conservatives who have stood against this violent assault on our democracy?
She has not. No, the most she can muster is to bad-mouth the police who were attacked by the mob and blame them for not doing a better job anticipating that the president of the united states would direct his followers to attack them.
PVW said:
Re mtierney's supposed condemnation of violence -- the contrast with BLM cuts against her here (a point ml1 made, which I hope he doesn't mind if I expand on).
The BLM protests were first amendment exercises protesting a legitimate grievance -- the disproportionate targeting and disproportionate violence directed against people of color (and especially black people) by the police. These protests happened over many months, in small towns, mid-sized cities, suburbs, and large cities, all across the country. The overwhelming majority had no violence.
In some instances, there was violence. Many times, that violence was instigated by the police themselves. In some cases, the violence was instigated by counter-protestors, including groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers (some of whom also were part of 1/6 attack). In some cases, the violence was people opportunistically taking advantage of the situation to attack property and to loot.
Notice how very selective mtierney's condemnation of violence is here -- only condemning that last set of cases, while ignoring the other two I listed. And no acknowledgment of the legitimate grievances the inspired the gatherings -- she focuses almost exclusively on the violence, and only the the violence it's political convenient for her to focus on.
...
And what of Jan 6th? Those who assaulted the capitol had gathered in support of the lie that Trump won the election. While the gathering at the Ellipse was a first amendment exercise, the grievance that drew them was a lie, not a legitimate issue. The gathered to hear Trump further promote his lie, and to hear him and his fellow speakers urge them to march on the capitol in support of that lie. And they did. And when that crowd became a mob and breached the capitol, interrupting the constitutional process and threatening the safety of our top elected officials, and resulting in several deaths, Trump did nothing to ease the situation. He declined to send help, was reportedly excited at seeing how the mob had responded to his words, and when Rep. McCarthy called him to urgently request help, Trump responded "Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are."
And Trump is still at it! He is still pushing the cause that led to the attack. At his urging, state GOP organizations have been pushing fradulent "audits" and taking steps to make it easier to overturn future elections. The very few Republicans who have dared to condemn this have been shunned by the party, drawing primary challenges, censure by state and local GOP parties, and pushed out of leadership positions.
Where has mtierney been on this? Has she condemned the lies Trump pushed, and continues to push, that led to this violence? Has she indicated any support whatsoever for any of the ongoing investigations being done to prevent a recurrence of this violence? Has she spoken up in defense of conservatives who have stood against this violent assault on our democracy?
She has not. No, the most she can muster is to bad-mouth the police who were attacked by the mob and blame them for not doing a better job anticipating that the president of the united states would direct his followers to attack them.
I love the expansion
jimmurphy said:
Smedley said:
If somehow Biden comes back strong, the Dems outperform in the midterms and Biden wins a second term I’ll be happy to admit I was wrong.
But in the interim, if you’re going to cite polls, at least cite aggregate stuff.
Do you want me to post the Quinnipiac poll from 4 days ago? Guessing you don’t.You’ve made your point very clearly umpteen times.
What is the reason for continuing to bring this up?
Are you trying to change minds? It’s pretty clear that isn’t happening.
Are you trying to mobilize people to do something? If so, what?
Are you just trying to go on record so that at some future point you can say “I told you so!?”
Can we just let the polls speak for themselves and move on?
Help me out. Why is this so important to you?
I'm only engaging back with posters who engage. Which I thought was the purpose of this discussion forum. If I were just quoting my own posts and adding to them , ie, talking to myself, I'd see your point, but I'm not, so I don't. All I can suggest is for you is to skip my posts.
It's funny, sometimes my political posts are in line with the prevailing wisdom on here, eg. on the vaccines, the Big Lie, and Trump being an f___tard. Generally, crickets on those posts. But people often want to debate the other stuff, sometime to great lengths, and I'm fine with that.
And don't forget, you frequently (and justifiably) flame mtierney for not responding to stuff. And now you flame me for responding to stuff?
Jaytee said:
jimmurphy said:
You’ve made your point very clearly umpteen times.
What is the reason for continuing to bring this up?
Are you trying to change minds? It’s pretty clear that isn’t happening.
Are you trying to mobilize people to do something? If so, what?
Are you just trying to go on record so that at some future point you can say “I told you so!?”
Can we just let the polls speak for themselves and move on?
Help me out. Why is this so important to you?
It’s the same logic MT uses to aggravate is…keep harping on a negative till it grinds your last nerve. Smelley here is worse than she is, he’s pretending to be impartial… while she’s straight up partisan hack.
I typically ignore insinuations from cranks that I am a GOPer or Trumpster, but for the record let me just point how how patently ridiculous that is.
This is an anonymous forum, well at least most of us are anonymous. So why on earth, on an anonymous online forum, would anyone disguise their political leanings. Should I care about what "Jaytee", or "drummerboy" or "nohero" think about "Smedley"'s politics? If I do, I got much bigger problems than politics.
Believe you me -- if I were a Trumpster I would be loud and proud about it, and this forum would be like Disneyland for me.
Smedley said:
jimmurphy said:
Smedley said:
If somehow Biden comes back strong, the Dems outperform in the midterms and Biden wins a second term I’ll be happy to admit I was wrong.
But in the interim, if you’re going to cite polls, at least cite aggregate stuff.
Do you want me to post the Quinnipiac poll from 4 days ago? Guessing you don’t.You’ve made your point very clearly umpteen times.
What is the reason for continuing to bring this up?
Are you trying to change minds? It’s pretty clear that isn’t happening.
Are you trying to mobilize people to do something? If so, what?
Are you just trying to go on record so that at some future point you can say “I told you so!?”
Can we just let the polls speak for themselves and move on?
Help me out. Why is this so important to you?
I'm only engaging back with posters who engage. Which I thought was the purpose of this discussion forum. If I were just quoting my own posts and adding to them , ie, talking to myself, I'd see your point, but I'm not, so I don't. All I can suggest is for you is to skip my posts.
It's funny, sometimes my political posts are in line with the prevailing wisdom on here, eg. on the vaccines, the Big Lie, and Trump being an f___tard. Generally, crickets on those posts. But people often want to debate the other stuff, sometime to great lengths, and I'm fine with that.
And don't forget, you frequently (and justifiably) flame mtierney for not responding to stuff. And now you flame me for responding to stuff?
dude, please. YOU are the one who resurfaced your poll obsession last week.
Smedley said:Anyone worried about the Biden presidency yet?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bidens-approval-rating-isnt-bouncing-back/
Smedley said:
The potshot king. Hello.
Well you know, besides me, Nate Silver and the Quinnipiac pollsters must really hate Biden. What other conclusion can be drawn from their recent blasphemous publishing?
Or, maybe the Quinnipiac poll is an outlier and/or captured a momentary blip. At least, according to this politics guru -
Those of you who insisted the Quinnipiac poll was an outlier (Biden job approval 38%) have a stronger case. New CBS poll (50% approval) and Ipsos (48% approval) suggest Biden either was never at 38% or has recovered lost ground.
— Larry Sabato (@LarrySabato) October 11, 2021
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
jimmurphy said:
Smedley said:
If somehow Biden comes back strong, the Dems outperform in the midterms and Biden wins a second term I’ll be happy to admit I was wrong.
But in the interim, if you’re going to cite polls, at least cite aggregate stuff.
Do you want me to post the Quinnipiac poll from 4 days ago? Guessing you don’t.You’ve made your point very clearly umpteen times.
What is the reason for continuing to bring this up?
Are you trying to change minds? It’s pretty clear that isn’t happening.
Are you trying to mobilize people to do something? If so, what?
Are you just trying to go on record so that at some future point you can say “I told you so!?”
Can we just let the polls speak for themselves and move on?
Help me out. Why is this so important to you?
I'm only engaging back with posters who engage. Which I thought was the purpose of this discussion forum. If I were just quoting my own posts and adding to them , ie, talking to myself, I'd see your point, but I'm not, so I don't. All I can suggest is for you is to skip my posts.
It's funny, sometimes my political posts are in line with the prevailing wisdom on here, eg. on the vaccines, the Big Lie, and Trump being an f___tard. Generally, crickets on those posts. But people often want to debate the other stuff, sometime to great lengths, and I'm fine with that.
And don't forget, you frequently (and justifiably) flame mtierney for not responding to stuff. And now you flame me for responding to stuff?
dude, please. YOU are the one who resurfaced your poll obsession last week.
Smedley said:Anyone worried about the Biden presidency yet?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bidens-approval-rating-isnt-bouncing-back/
It was news, not recycled stuff. Just like the Sabato tweet that I don't see you tsk-tsking about.
Enough about me! How about this story which garners no outrage here. Wait….it’s my fault for pursuing this major story!
Not arguing the saying “beauty is in the eye of the beholder/buyer”, but it is also a colossal money laundering how-to for beginners, The gallerist gets a whooping stimulus check as well.
You can’t make this stuff up.
mtierney said:
Enough about me! How about this story which garners no outrage here. Wait….it’s my fault for pursuing this major story!
Not arguing the saying “beauty is in the eye of the beholder/buyer”, but it is also a colossal money laundering how-to for beginners, The gallerist gets a whooping stimulus check as well.
You can’t make this stuff up.
PVW said:
BTW, going to save y'all a lot of time right now. Just do a find and replace of "Benghazi" for "Hunter Biden" on this thread, and you've got the the next four years. No need to revisit until 2024.
Smedley said:
It's funny, sometimes my political posts are in line with the prevailing wisdom on here, eg. on the vaccines, the Big Lie, and Trump being an f___tard. Generally, crickets on those posts.
What’s so funny about peace, love and understanding?
mtierney said:
Enough about me! How about this story which garners no outrage here. Wait….it’s my fault for pursuing this major story!
Not arguing the saying “beauty is in the eye of the beholder/buyer”, but it is also a colossal money laundering how-to for beginners, The gallerist gets a whooping stimulus check as well.
You can’t make this stuff up.
So, I read the article. And I lost brain cells in the process.
Still, Mtierney, you do understand that the article is 100% innuendo, right?
What about allegations based in fact that Trump attempted the greatest crime against the American people since the founding of the nation?
I guess NYPost is Mtierney's go to resource these days. LOL embarrassing
As for Biden's approval rating - it's the supply chain stupid. Biden will be blamed for all future delays. It's a fact of life. Of course people will blame on whatever they want to further their partisan agenda. But it's mostly independents affecting this number.
Smedley said:
I'm only engaging back with posters who engage. Which I thought was the purpose of this discussion forum. If I were just quoting my own posts and adding to them , ie, talking to myself, I'd see your point, but I'm not, so I don't. All I can suggest is for you is to skip my posts.
It's funny, sometimes my political posts are in line with the prevailing wisdom on here, eg. on the vaccines, the Big Lie, and Trump being an f___tard. Generally, crickets on those posts. But people often want to debate the other stuff, sometime to great lengths, and I'm fine with that.
And don't forget, you frequently (and justifiably) flame mtierney for not responding to stuff. And now you flame me for responding to stuff?
OK, but given that there’s no movement on the part of the posters who are disagreeing/engaging, doesn’t it make sense to agree to disagree and move on?
jimmurphy said:
OK, but given that there’s no movement on the part of the posters who are disagreeing/engaging, doesn’t it make sense to agree to disagree and move on?
When Smedley refers to an MOL consensus or orthodoxy, as Smedley tends to do, I sense a desire for affirmation. The Independent Thinker helpfully wants the rest of us to see the light. (Otherwise, crickets would be taken as a natural form of acceptance or indifference, and debate as a natural response to disagreement, rather than as peculiarities.) Independent Thinkers — it’s usually right there on the résumé — can be hard to please that way.
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
that's it? "angry, disappointed mobs" counts as a condemnation?
LOL