Maybe, but seems like the opposite situation. It is like a child born into a fundamentalist family and then leaving the faith. And then saying all born again are mentally ill. Am I missing something?
not sure why you would assume I agree with it. sometimes people just post things that they think are interesting or present a different perspective.
You wouldn't have any idea what people would presume that you agree with an article you post? Really? If you don't state your position on an article you post, I think it's standard practice to presume you agree with the article.
Why? I'm not sure why it would be normal to post articles you don't agree with and not post a comment, unless you were simply trolling for reaction.
not trolling for anything. some people enjoy such contributions, you might not. you know what Thoreau said . . . I desire that there be as many different people in the world as possible Spoiler that actual quote is: "I would not have any one adopt my mode of living on any account; for, beside that before he has fairly learned it I may have found out another for myself, I desire that there may be as many different persons in the world as possible; but I would have each one be very careful to find out and pursue his own way, and not his father's or his mother's or his neighbor's instead. The youth may build or plant or sail, only let him not be hindered from doing that which he tells me he would like to do."
Yes. I'm fine with different points of view. I prefer to find and discuss different points of view for a better understanding. But if I don't know a person's position then it isn't really possible to ask them questions and gather a greater understanding.
Nancy Pelosi isn't losing her power. The weirdo's and freaks on the far left of the party that recently were elected are stretching their wings and seeing what they can get done. This isn't any different that other times a small group of extremists have seized some level of legitimacy. Pelosi I am sure is more concerned with trying to keep a unified front.
you realize someone might be completely agnostic on an issue, even agnostic on a whole variety of issues--perhaps even agnostic on the great majority of issues. Not everyone is so ideologically wedded to a prior position that when a piece of new information or a new analysis presents itself, he or she can just jump immediately and automatically to a firm conclusion about that information. Hence the desire to discuss or debate such information or analysis, in order to help with figuring out how we ought to think about it.
House Democrats throwing Omar under the bus was shameful but not unexpected. Still the same crappy Democrats from before, now we just have even crappier Republicans to worry about.
Lest we forget, Os is a self-proclaimed moderate Democrat...thus, we get a steady stream of national review...wall street journal op/eds...hotair.com...why no blaze.com? “The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.” ― Arthur Schopenhauer
I would assume you agree with it because you post about the same topic regularly and then defend the stance taken by the authors. This intellectually curious persona you are trying to create is failing miserable. Everyone can see your game.
