[TheRealThing]

The left are perfectly okay with any lie they have to tell in order to bring down political enemies. For example, need to bring down a President? Start a completely baseless rumor charging collusion between his campaign organization and Russia, even though guilty of ceding control of 20% of this nation's uranium mining to Russia themselves. Then as a cherry on top, make dark and sinister though nonspecific alleges about his income tax returns. Never mind the fact that the IRS has unquestioned and complete authority to lay the lumber to him had he so much as a hiccup to account for.

Since common sense has for the most part gone bye-bye, the only opportunity the throngs of those suffering from terminal superficiality have in gaining a truthful perspective on current events is if said events get reported on accurately. But after 8 years of covering for the Obama Administration's blunders, we all know that is not about to happen. So, as Ben Rhodes has said, one can control the thoughts of the afore mentioned throngs if he has the blessings of the media. But as Mr Obama often lamented, the cocklebur under his government's saddle blanket was the one news entity that refused to play along. Those insufferable reporters of FOX News just gave him fits in reporting the news honestly, thusly making his efforts to manipulate the masses a real headache.

The question is how does one get an organization to fall in-line? The answer IMHO, is money and mischief. The preponderance of anchors there at FOX were at one time considered to be conservative, as the on air personalities bought into the operational model envisioned by then top dog Roger Ailes. Little by little however, and undeniably to be sure, those anchors began to feature liberal interviewees, who were usually pitted against conservatives who couldn't hold their own. Then Shepard Smith all of a sudden has courage enough to come out of the closet, Ailes falls victim to the charges of sexual harassment made against him by Gretchen Carlson, and now Bill O'Reilly has suffered the kiss of death too. It's the same old Democrat playbook, racism or sexual misconduct. I highly suspect an organized assault on FOX from without. Ailes and the influence of Mr O'Reilly made FOX, and now they're both gone. Problem solved.
EXCERPT---
[SIZE="2"]"Bill O’Reilly has blamed his ouster from Fox News on “completely unfounded claims” that have been leveled against him.

The embattled news anchor and longtime pillar of Fox News was dropped Wednesday by the network he helped build amid a steady stream of allegations that he engaged in sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior toward women over the years."[/SIZE]
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bill-o%...id=UE09DHP

On parent network programing, only two conservative shows remain, Tucker Carlson and Hannity. Frankly, if not for FBN I wouldn't waste my time watching at all; If the business side goes awry that would mean that viable news reporting would at that point be a thing of the past, as far as televised news is concerned. What an incredible mess. And to make matters even worse, some milk toast Republicans have announced they will retire after serving their terms.

[The Urban Sombrero]

So, you are an advocate of "boys will be boys" stuff? "Hey, baby, big daddy gonna help your career, so come on up to the suite?" Of course Dems and libs pull these kinds of shenanigans also. No doubt, the shadow lands of sexuality are exploited by both sexes, and we all know that, but for, oh, the past twenty-five or thirty years, any public figure ought to have known to stay far away from those shadow lands, regardless of political philosophy.

[Granny Bear]

I agree with you Sombrero, except for TRT advocating the "boys will be boys" stuff.

Bill and Hill continued to live their extravagant public life, when Monica Lewinsky became homeless due to the fact that she couldn't get a job. Not many in the media covered that little tid bit.

[TheRealThing]

So, you are an advocate of "boys will be boys" stuff? "Hey, baby, big daddy gonna help your career, so come on up to the suite?" Of course Dems and libs pull these kinds of shenanigans also. No doubt, the shadow lands of sexuality are exploited by both sexes, and we all know that, but for, oh, the past twenty-five or thirty years, any public figure ought to have known to stay far away from those shadow lands, regardless of political philosophy.

I refer you to the first sentence of the second paragraph in the thread starter. Ironically you always miss seeing the forest looking at the trees, and yet acceptance of every allege against a conservative at face value is no stretch for you whatever. You are led by that for which you hope. Therefore your eveready bunny defense of the left on all accounts, and the automatic acceptance of any charge made against those who would call them out.

The only news agency with the integrity and character to make an attempt to exact accountability from the Obama Administration was FOX News. Everybody else was asking what was his favorite color, or about his appearance on a late night show, a movie cameo, or some other equally meaningless baloney. The eroding situation at FOX is likely being orchestrated.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I refer you to the first sentence of the second paragraph in the thread starter. Ironically you always miss seeing the forest looking at the trees, and yet acceptance of every allege against a conservative at face value is no stretch for you whatever. You are led by that for which you hope. Therefore your eveready bunny defense of the left on all accounts, and the automatic acceptance of any charge made against those who would call them out.

Note the question mark. Note the reference to dems and libs. Note the idea that public figures of all stripes and flavors ought to avoid the shadow lands of sexuality in professional relationships. How is suggesting that O'Reilly is no more or less a cad in his behavior than Clinton, for instance, taking up for the left?

[TheRealThing]

Note the question mark. Note the reference to dems and libs. Note the idea that public figures of all stripes and flavors ought to avoid the shadow lands of sexuality in professional relationships. How is suggesting that O'Reilly is no more or less a cad in his behavior than Clinton, for instance, taking up for the left?

You weren't there when the record of communications gathered by the NSA on Trump campaign surrogates was sorted out and catalogued in chronological order, nor were you there when Susan Rice unmasked their names, nor were you there when the administration disseminated the information among the 17 federal agencies making it look like Trump was being investigated during the final days of the campaign. But your were there to slam Trump for calling them out for it, were you not?

You weren't there to see if Ailes and/or O'Reilly were actually guilty of the first trespass of sexual misconduct. But again, here you are to judge them. First and always a champion of the left, denying they specialize in character assassination with regularity, you are nonetheless happy to pronounce O'Reilly guilty as charged. Why? Because you want it to be true.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You weren't there when the record of communications gathered by the NSA on Trump campaign surrogates was sorted out and catalogued in chronological order, nor were you there when Susan Rice unmasked their names, nor were you there when the administration disseminated the information among the 17 federal agencies making it look like Trump was being investigated during the final days of the campaign. But your were there to slam Trump for calling them out for it, were you not?

You weren't there to see if Ailes and/or O'Reilly were actually guilty of the first trespass of sexual misconduct. But again, here. you are to judge them. First and always a champion of the left, denying they specialize in character assassination with regularity, you are nonetheless happy to pronounce O'Reilly guilty as charged. Why? Because you want it to be true.

Incorrect. First, Hillary Clinton got slammed all around by investigation and innuendo and the like. It has been my constant contention that both sides play tough, dirty pool at times and that politics is dirty business. As for O'Reilly, it has been rumored for years about his penchant for dirty talk and abuse of power in the shadow lands of bringing sexuality into the work environment. The days depicted in MAD MEN are long gone, but men of all political stripes and flavors keep stumbling into those shadow lands. Others will step in to take up O'Reilly's mantras, the beat will go on. I personally take no delight in O'Reilly's firing, and he is pocketing 25 million. I have zero power to try or convict him, but can offer an opinion based on years of reported office talk at Fox News and all the various accounts.

[TheRealThing]

Incorrect. First, Hillary Clinton got slammed all around by investigation and innuendo and the like. It has been my constant contention that both sides play tough, dirty pool at times and that politics is dirty business. As for O'Reilly, it has been rumored for years about his penchant for dirty talk and abuse of power in the shadow lands of bringing sexuality into the work environment. The days depicted in MAD MEN are long gone, but men of all political stripes and flavors keep stumbling into those shadow lands. Others will step in to take up O'Reilly's mantras, the beat will go on. I personally take no delight in O'Reilly's firing, and he is pocketing 25 million. I have zero power to try or convict him, but can offer an opinion based on years of reported office talk at Fox News and all the various accounts.

Right, Hillary is innocent of any wrong doing whatever. The administration of her affiliation didn't use federal resources and our tax dollars to spy on the Trump campaign. Russia did not give the Clinton foundation one dime. The FBI was not prepared to pay off a former British agent for putting together a dossier on Mr Trump. And you did not make any assumptions whatever in handing down your O'Reilly sentence from afar.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Right, Hillary is innocent of any wrong doing whatever. The administration of her affiliation didn't use federal resources and our tax dollars to spy on the Trump campaign. Russia did not give the Clinton foundation one dime. The FBI was not prepared to pay off a former British agent for putting together a dossier on Mr Trump. And you did not make any assumptions whatever in handing down your O'Reilly sentence from afar.

Funny: you cite reported sources and put a feather in your cap. Anybody else is playing the expert from "afar." What rot. Did I say Hillary Clinton was angelic? No, I did not. Pure straw. Over and over and over again. You dance on the head of a pin when you walk in denial of both sides of the aisle rolling in the mud of politics. It's a tough, dirty process and always has been. Given that businessman Donald Trump got to post-bankruptcy places where he had to borrow Russian-based money, it is reasonable to possess a healthy skepticism in regards this area. In this, President Trump is not unusual in shady ties, just unusual that they most likely reach pretty close to Vladimir Putin. I would hope that no matter what stripe the President, the citizenry and Congress would maintain vigilence in Presedential conflict of interest scenarios.

[TheRealThing]

Funny: you cite reported sources and put a feather in your cap. Anybody else is playing the expert from "afar." What rot. Did I say Hillary Clinton was angelic? No, I did not. Pure straw. Over and over and over again. You dance on the head of a pin when you walk in denial of both sides of the aisle rolling in the mud of politics. It's a tough, dirty process and always has been. Given that businessman Donald Trump got to post-bankruptcy places where he had to borrow Russian-based money, it is reasonable to possess a healthy skepticism in regards this area. In this, President Trump is not unusual in shady ties, just unusual that they most likely reach pretty close to Vladimir Putin. I would hope that no matter what stripe the President, the citizenry and Congress would maintain vigilence in Presedential conflict of interest scenarios.

Anything remotely relative to reason has escaped your grasp.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Anything remotely relative to reason has escaped your grasp.

Blah. Blah. Blah, pompous windbag

[TheRealThing]

Blah. Blah. Blah, pompous windbag

LOL, well like I keep telling you, as in your case when one's opinion is given him by others, it can be difficult to prove a point.

[The Urban Sombrero]

LOL, well like I keep telling you, as in your case when one's opinion is given him by others, it can be difficult to prove a point.

Ah, yet again, the wind blows hot from a gas bag.

[TheRealThing]

Ah, yet again, the wind blows hot from a gas bag.

Whatever. Doesn't change the fact that you have defended Obama and Hillary from day one of your emergence as Sombrero. And it doesn't change the fact that you argue against established truth from an emotional standpoint. Talking points and feelings are your stock-in-trade, as they are for the college aged protestors we've been seeing these days from out in Berkley, California. The darling little mushrooms can't begin to articulate the source of their consternations, but they just feel so strongly about them.

Your act is somewhat more rehearsed, as you hide behind high sounding words you happen to pick up like essential liberty and egalitarian, and though your application of those terms are sadly misplaced, still you just feel so strongly in your leftward activism. Thus, talking to you is a lot like trying to win an argument with a girl, in such case facts don't mean that much and in that regard you are strictly hands off.

[attachment=o3532] FEELINGS----

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆️ More blather and ad hominem from a guy who thinks egalitarian principle is a feeling and freedom of conscience an emotion. What rot. You need a new act, sporto. The whole "bleeding heart" thing is SO tired. And, if it applied here, were it valid, so be it; however, it is a type of a last resort for a pompous gas bag. Sorry, old pal, your irrelevant gibberish settles nothing for none but your tenuous ego.

[Granny Bear]

Whatever. Doesn't change the fact that you have defended Obama and Hillary from day one of your emergence as Sombrero. And it doesn't change the fact that you argue against established truth from an emotional standpoint. Talking points and feelings are your stock-in-trade, as they are for the college aged protestors we've been seeing these days from out in Berkley, California. The darling little mushrooms can't begin to articulate the source of their consternations, but they just feel so strongly about them.

Your act is somewhat more rehearsed, as you hide behind high sounding words you happen to pick up like essential liberty and egalitarian, and though your application of those terms are sadly misplaced, still you just feel so strongly in your leftward activism. Thus, talking to you is a lot like trying to win an argument with a girl, in such case facts don't mean that much and in that regard you are strictly hands off.

[attachment=o3532] FEELINGS----

That statement is brilliantly articulated!!

[The Urban Sombrero]

That statement is brilliantly articulated!!

But is it accurate?

[TheRealThing]

⬆️ More blather and ad hominem from a guy who thinks egalitarian principle is a feeling and freedom of conscience an emotion. What rot. You need a new act, sporto. The whole "bleeding heart" thing is SO tired. And, if it applied here, were it valid, so be it; however, it is a type of a last resort for a pompous gas bag. Sorry, old pal, your irrelevant gibberish settles nothing for none but your tenuous ego.

As I have mentioned to you, psychologists refer to your particular neurosis as projection. Those afflicted 'project' their own faults on foes and opponents. I don't know what nomeclative somersaults specialists in the field might have to go through to completely coin the clinical woes from which you suffer, but what I do know is your writing vocabulary, analogies, inflections and literary nuance are nearly an exact copy of my own. I mean as in the post above, many times you don't let the dust settle before you launch off into another one your plagiarisms.

You're gonna have to come up with your own material if you want to impress somebody other than Gitback Coach and mr.fundamental. :biggrin:

[The Urban Sombrero]

As I have mentioned to you, psychologists refer to your particular neurosis as projection. Those afflicted 'project' their own faults on foes and opponents. I don't know what nomeclative somersaults specialists in the field might have to go through to completely coin the clinical woes from which you suffer, but what I do know is your writing vocabulary, analogies, inflections and literary nuance are nearly an exact copy of my own. I mean as in the post above, many times you don't let the dust settle before you launch off into another one your plagiarisms.

You're gonna have to come up with your own material if you want to impress somebody other than Gitback Coach and mr.fundamental. :biggrin:

Man, you sure look in the mirror and preen a lot. You toss around unsubstantiated allegations like Hal Mumme used to toss around the football. Apparently, "impressing" folks is on your mind quite a bit, as you come back to it a lot. In that I know zero people personally on BGR, and you obviously do, your charge is rather odd. It appears you understand the concept of projection, but, because you are, after all, a king-sized Patti Partisan, you consistently misapply its designation to suit your own purposes.

[TheRealThing]

Man, you sure look in the mirror and preen a lot. You toss around unsubstantiated allegations like Hal Mumme used to toss around the football. Apparently, "impressing" folks is on your mind quite a bit, as you come back to it a lot. In that I know zero people personally on BGR, and you obviously do, your charge is rather odd. It appears you understand the concept of projection, but, because you are, after all, a king-sized Patti Partisan, you consistently misapply its designation to suit your own purposes.

LOL, might as well add denial to the list too I guess. Gitback is your most prolific 'liker,' and mr.fundamental tries to have your back. You all are buds.

[The Urban Sombrero]

LOL, might as well add denial to the list too I guess. Gitback is your most prolific 'liker,' and mr.fundamental tries to have your back. You all are buds.

It is you who keeps up with, and apparently cares about such things.

[TheRealThing]

It is you who keeps up with, and apparently cares about such things.

Now now, I know reality is subjective there in La-La Land, and even then it tends to disrupt personal delusions of Shangri-La. But I'm okay with you all believing whatever you want, that is except when a La-La rises to high office and we get a mess such as the one handed down to us from your hero, Mr Obama.

You can call my cursory observation 'keeping up' if you want, like I said you're going to believe what you want to anyway. However, as I see things relevancy is not a state of mind, nor is it very often visited upon the left.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Now now, I know reality is subjective there in La-La Land, and even then it tends to disrupt personal delusions of Shangri-La. But I'm okay with you all believing whatever you want, that is except when a La-La rises to high office and we get a mess such as the one handed down to us from your hero, Mr Obama.

You can call my cursory observation 'keeping up' if you want, like I said you're going to believe what you want to anyway. However, as I see things relevancy is not a state of mind, nor is it very often visited upon the left.

Once again, and this is tiresome, never have I uttered one sentence proffering Barack Obama as my hero. It is fascinating, TRT, how you debate, not the poster in front of you, but rather the monolithic "Left." Most every human being believes what they want. I've never met the totally objective person. Still haven't.

[TheRealThing]

Once again, and this is tiresome, never have I uttered one sentence proffering Barack Obama as my hero. It is fascinating, TRT, how you debate, not the poster in front of you, but rather the monolithic "Left." Most every human being believes what they want. I've never met the totally objective person. Still haven't.

Bull, you can't make enough excuses for Obama and his mindless marionettes.

Oh I'm sure you are enthralled. It's one thing to be true to one's self, it's quite another to revise current events according to your secular humanistic faith based expectations and have the temerity to be incredulous when everybody doesn't fall in line with you. Your hero does the same thing every time he addresses the children of a lesser god as he did only yesterday. In typically arrogant terms, he again talked down to everybody who does not agree with his views on immigration. After all he said, we don't want to offend those who we may yet be able to win over. The man has no concept of ever being wrong in his assumptions, and like all liberals, he has a propensity to ignore the chaos he helped to perpetrate through his own policy. I mean, the hundreds of thousands of crimes committed by illegals, and the thousands of Americans who've suffered physical injury are just meaningless statistics to be ignored. Not to mention the fact that in large measure thanks to his Presidency, the world beyond our own borders is either figuratively or literally on fire.

I can forgive objective lapses. I just can't accept a lifestyle in which self delusion supplants the reality of the daily news. La-La's can make it up as they go because they are true believers. Notwithstanding, the horizons of the poster standing in front of me are a bit too low for me to spend a lot of time arguing with. Therefore I expand my answers to include the things that are clearly visible to those who can accept them. As I said, I prefer to consider all truth, especially Scriptural truth.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Bull, you can't make enough excuses for Obama and his mindless marionettes.

Oh I'm sure you are enthralled. It's one thing to be true to one's self, it's quite another to revise current events according to your secular humanistic faith based expectations and have the temerity to be incredulous when everybody doesn't fall in line with you. Your hero does the same thing every time he addresses the children of a lesser god as he did only yesterday. In typically arrogant terms, he again talked down to everybody who does not agree with his views on immigration. After all he said, we don't want to offend those who we may yet be able to win over. The man has no concept of ever being wrong in his assumptions, and like all liberals, he has a propensity to ignore the chaos he helped to perpetrate through his own policy. I mean, the hundreds of thousands of crimes committed by illegals, and the thousands of Americans who've suffered physical injury are just meaningless statistics to be ignored. Not to mention the fact that in large measure thanks to his Presidency, the world beyond our own borders is either figuratively or literally on fire.

I can forgive objective lapses. I just can't accept a lifestyle in which self delusion supplants the reality of the daily news. La-La's can make it up as they go because they are true believers. Notwithstanding, the horizons of the poster standing in front of me are a bit too low for me to spend a lot of time arguing with. Therefore I expand my answers to include the things that are clearly visible to those who can accept them. As I said, I prefer to consider all truth, especially Scriptural truth.

Once again, your colossal arrogance on display. You invent history, deny incongruities within the Founders themselves, blather blindly in raised fist support of Donald Trump, even when grossly in error, to name a few, then skip along in your merry world of "Legend TRT." It's funny. Except when it's sad.

[TheRealThing]

Once again, your colossal arrogance on display. You invent history, deny incongruities within the Founders themselves, blather blindly in raised fist support of Donald Trump, even when grossly in error, to name a few, then skip along in your merry world of "Legend TRT." It's funny. Except when it's sad.

I know that's how you see me, and though the ability to accept the truth may be a trait which has become increasingly more rare in our time, it is nonetheless something short of legend. However, it does take more than the ability to copy my writing style to win a debate.

If you had so much as one example to back yourself up, you'd be wearing me out with it. But then your inability to point out a shred of empirical evidence in support any claim that I have erred, is glaring. Feelings continue to be your go-to.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I know that's how you see me, and though the ability to accept the truth may be a trait which has become increasingly more rare in our time, it is nonetheless something short of legend. However, it does take more than the ability to copy my writing style to win a debate.

If you had so much as one example to back yourself up, you'd be wearing me out with it. But then your inability to point out a shred of empirical evidence in support any claim that I have erred, is glaring. Feelings continue to be your go-to.

Do you even remotely understand that many of the Founders had slave concubines, in addition to wives, while touting Christian virtue? That Jefferson, if a slave ran off, would hound heaven and earth to see them returned? Evidencing the same restless outrage I've seen in folks who've lost a weedeater to an out building thief? I have provided countless examples. You see as you see. I understand that. However, it is ridiculously disingenuous for you to act like you've gone unanswered. Egalitarian principle, liberty of conscience, these were concepts deeply valued by Roger Williams, by Ben Franklin, by John Quincy Adams, et al. "No, no, you say, these specific words were never uttered." All human beings not granted inalienable rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) but born with them; we the people, all people, set to establish justice for all, yet you say "no, no, those exact words." We, in my view, should aspire to the highest, most inclusive interpretation of these principles possible, honoring them in folks with whom we disagree philosophically and morally, because this nation is strong enough to be one nation without being one big block of homogeneity. Somehow, you view that as being a threat to this nation. No, TRT, you err in your diagnosis and your accusation, both which serve to flatter your own elevated notions of your own pedigree.

[TheRealThing]

Do you even remotely understand that many of the Founders had slave concubines, in addition to wives, while touting Christian virtue? That Jefferson, if a slave ran off, would hound heaven and earth to see them returned? Evidencing the same restless outrage I've seen in folks who've lost a weedeater to an out building thief? I have provided countless examples. You see as you see. I understand that. However, it is ridiculously disingenuous for you to act like you've gone unanswered. Egalitarian principle, liberty of conscience, these were concepts deeply valued by Roger Williams, by Ben Franklin, by John Quincy Adams, et al. "No, no, you say, these specific words were never uttered." All human beings not granted inalienable rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) but born with them; we the people, all people, set to establish justice for all, yet you say "no, no, those exact words." We, in my view, should aspire to the highest, most inclusive interpretation of these principles possible, honoring them in folks with whom we disagree philosophically and morally, because this nation is strong enough to be one nation without being one big block of homogeneity. Somehow, you view that as being a threat to this nation. No, TRT, you err in your diagnosis and your accusation, both which serve to flatter your own elevated notions of your own pedigree.

And again, the loop train makes it's stop at Circleville Station. I understand today's human trafficking market is far more prolific than it was in the 17th and 18th centuries of which you have been taken captive, I can tell you that. And not that you'd have the first clue as to the state of affairs at the Jefferson household, but you would see this land reduced to irrelevancy over alleged sins of the past. What about today's slave trade? Passing judgment and sentence on modern society for something that happened centuries past is beyond asinine. Why not advocate for the victims of our time and work up those 'feelings' about them?

From Hillary to George Soros, in you the left have found a defender until death do you part. Slaves throughout history have been the victims of those they trust, exploited by their own people for money. Not Thomas Jefferson

[The Urban Sombrero]

And again, the loop train makes it's stop at Circleville Station. I understand today's human trafficking market is far more prolific than it was in the 17th and 18th centuries of which you have been taken captive, I can tell you that. And not that you'd have the first clue as to the state of affairs at the Jefferson household, but you would see this land reduced to irrelevancy over alleged sins of the past. What about today's slave trade? Passing judgment and sentence on modern society for something that happened centuries past is beyond asinine. Why not advocate for the victims of our time and work up those 'feelings' about them?

From Hillary to George Soros, in you the left have found a defender until death do you part. Slaves throughout history have been the victims of those they trust, exploited by their own people for money. Not Thomas Jefferson

Yes, Thomas Jefferson, and the point is not to be held hostage by the past, but to recognize that the past is a part of history. You create arguments you want to debate. This is fallacy at its zenith. This nation will not be reduced to irrelevancy by egalitarian principle or freedom of conscience or the continual striving toward the ideals of our founding documents at their highest calling. Give us all a break from your sanctimonious droning.

[TheRealThing]

Yes, Thomas Jefferson, and the point is not to be held hostage by the past, but to recognize that the past is a part of history. You create arguments you want to debate. This is fallacy at its zenith. This nation will not be reduced to irrelevancy by egalitarian principle or freedom of conscience or the continual striving toward the ideals of our founding documents at their highest calling. Give us all a break from your sanctimonious droning.

You don't have the first clue how good life was at the Jefferson estate, nor do you have a leg to stand on with the deal about Founders and slave concubines. :please: That doesn't stop you though, does it? Feelings can always overcome reason, or the historical record for that matter, right there Sombrero? But you mean 'us' as in you, mr.fundamental and Gitback I assume? Because they are your only audience on here. Certainly nobody else is going to allow you to rewrite and redefine this nation's historical significance in the vain writhings of the liberal revisionist.

And I know current events are to be ignored for the fully bloomed lib, but as an unpleasant reminder, the 5-4 conservative balance to the Supreme Court has been restored again. Further, with any luck at all Donald Trump will be privileged to appoint at least one more associate justice and likely 2. So you know what you can do with your liberal 'higher calling' pipe dreams. :biggrin: