Ibleedbrown

Cindy? I realize this is an old comment, but this last election cycle she was up for reelection, and l swear l received something like a dozen mailers that were all about her, and they were all over the map. Some painted her like she was a liberal democrat. Some touted that she was endorsed by Trump and law enforcement. It was weird, and l’m sure they were funded by different organizations with varying degrees of nefarious intentions. It reminded me of a story another poster linked here about left wing political pacts funding super right wing candidates during the primaries, figuring if they win they’ll have a more beatable opponent in the general election. That’s evil genius man. I’m reasonably certain some of that was going on with the mailers l was receiving. I dunno. I voted for Cindy. I think she’s representing well. What’s your take on her now?

Aww, too bad. I actually kinda like Esiason as a broadcaster.

If that’s what it takes, raaar! I’m solidly middle aged and just now figuring this stuff out so l’m basically a loser who has no right to offer relationship advice. Fair warning.

Women need positive attention. Took me too long to crack that code if l’m being honest. It’s simple fellas, every day, a positive word or gesture in her direction. Let her know how much she means on a daily basis.

Way to make this thread super weird. What is even going on here? Dude’s bangin’ my wife and l’ll just casually insert that on a message board…

Suck what?

Well hell, we’re used to that. Toughest fans in sports!

The draft capital part of the deal is paid. That is pretty exciting. I must admit l do kinda like having a first round pick. Some combination of the movie Draft Day and lifetime fandom has done me that way.

Wow. You’re older than l thought you were. Your youthfulness jumps off the screen. Unless you were placing bets as an 8 year old, which, if so, that’s pretty cool.

Who could forget this classic? Most of these guys were just plum awful at rapping.

Thrash!!!

My commentary was mostly an observation on how the topic of climate change has morphed into a device that perpetuates the perception that democrats are the “pro-environment” party and republicans are not. The amount of collective energy spent towards these ends is significant based on the wealth of information out there trying to prove or disprove it. My thoughts then turned to asking myself, what effect does this wealth of information and back and forth debate do for folks that are, like myself, undecided or don’t have the time or inclination to dig in to that wealth of information? They fall back on the perception created by all of it, that being that democrats are the “pro-environment” party because they champion the cause. It’s simply a +1 in their column for folks who DO consider the environment when voting but DON’T have the time or inclination to dig in to it all. I think we agree that most everyone is cool with reasonable policies that are pro-environment. There have been human foibles within our lifetimes that remind us to keep an eye on things. You mentioned some of them. And yeah, l wanna see the 2 parties duke it out to earn those votes and actually DO things that are reasonable and effective. You made this comment, “I don't see republicans doing much of anything about it. Why would they? The same power the dems grab is the same power they will have.” I suppose at the end of the day l would like to see republicans summon their inner Teddy Roosevelt and gun for that power again. And the reason they would do it is to pick up votes. Go on the offensive to change the perception that they are a pro-environment party.

Yessir, a voting capital power grab. And it’s been working like a charm for something like 20 plus years. You really gotta tip your cap to the democrats over this shit. Wasn’t there some kerfluffle about Biden trying to pass some sort of ridiculous EV mandate recently? That’s how they do it man. Keep the republicans on defense. And yes, l’m pretty sure it’s one of those things we’re squarely united on. Clean air, clean water, all good stuff. But this manufactured sticking point has effectively eroded the republican party’s opportunity to show that because they and their constituents are chasing their tails over the validity of global warming.

There’s a term in media reporting where if a topic has “legs” it means that it’s a topic that can absorb gobs and gobs of stories that continue to capture the publics’ attention. I’m astounded that the topic of global warming has such magnificent legs. I dunno guys. I suppose my official stance on the matter is “maybe it’s a thing, maybe not, time will tell”, and l’m totally content with that position. We now have hour plus long documentaries that it’s NOT a thing, and presumably hour plus documentaries that it IS a thing. I think we’re teetering on the edge of absurdity here. Al Gore man, however did you stumble upon this? I honestly think anymore it’s less about science and more about politics. Just a sticking point to get people arguing with one another. Case in point, we’re a good 16 posts in here with the “it’s not a thing” crowd, but zero posts from the “it is a thing” crowd. You’re arguing with echoes here guys. My theory is the average voter who likes some aspect of nature, whether it be hiking or hunting or bird watching or sticking your dick in mole hills, l would wager many of them don’t have the time or patience to hang with the wealth of information out there on this topic. Or they may be like me and they simply table their opinion for a future time. All they know is global warming has something to do with preserving nature, and if that’s something they keep in mind when voting, it’s a +1 for democrats. Republicans, aka the “conservatives”, SHOULD be the ones in the +1 for nature category, but they’re not. Because democrats have them chasing their tails over global warming and they’re pretty good at floating ideas that might be good for the environment. Republicans are constantly playing defense and their offense sucks in that area. I’m confident that this is a contributing factor to the public perception that the democrats are the pro-environment party.

Sure, we’ve seen that phenomenon, where for better or worse (l vote worse) we are led to believe that determining the shooter’s “side” is of the utmost importance. I believe this is the first time that lens has been refracted on a straight up violent and very public suicide. It’s kinda like reading a headline “Man spreads tahini over his body and gets eaten alive by squirrels in protest of…” And then the rest of the article is about his past employment at Subway and he was employee of the month 4 times and made one hell of a chicken bacon ranch club. There are times where media reporting is just too damn weird.