The Effects of Dehumanizing Language in Political Discourse

[midnight orange]

People’s minds have been completely warped by social media. It has gotten exponentially worse in the last five years. The Social Dilemma should be required viewing before returning to the internet.

People need to understand they hold the key to solving a lot of these issues by simply getting off social media. They are the commodity, they have a lot more power than they think.

I think it’s very easy to see the words that someone typed as not human but a string of words. We communicate in person with body language and words and communicating with a string of printed words makes it easy to de-humanize others. The goal of politics is to divide and conquer and if you can get the populace de-humanizing the other side, it plays right into their hands. Kudos to RockyTop85 for a genuine, reflective thread.

 

[RockyTop85]

Not at all trying to be overly dismissive of this. So I’ll take some of it point by point. But overall, I just don’t agree that a politician needs to be some sort of true believer or zealot or something.

Yes I see that there are still some members of both parties that at least try to work some together. Sinnema for one, has surprised me. Manchin has always played the game based on who his constituency is. I'm not sold on Sasse, he was a little late to the party and the cynical part of me thinks that he has seen the polls and is trying to save his ass more than all of a sudden achieving enlightenment.

Politicians are no different from lawyers [insert jokes here]. Whether they believe it or not is immaterial. It’s whether they do their job and represent the interests correctly. I wouldn’t vote for Sasse if he were my senator for exactly the reason you identified. I think towing the line for Trump is a sign of bad judgment. His attempt to exit isn’t compelling at this point. But, it’s a sign that he sees the writing in the wall and if that writing says “shut the **** up and get it done.” Then that’s what they’ll do. Both sides.

Tim Scott's police reform bill was defeated, I believe, by the Democrats.

Correct, but not the point you asked about. It underscores the fact that those two broke the picket line.

Buttigieg has recently made some pretty radical statements regarding Judge Barrett. Was his reconciliation platform an act or is it that he has a hot button issue regarding how he thinks Judge Barrett will impact gay marriage? The cynical side of me says "Why not both?"

I don’t know what he said about Barrett other than that his marriage may be affected. That seems plausible. I think if he campaigned on reconciliation and got elected, he would have attempted to work with Republicans. I think Biden will as well. Whether they can get any to work with them probably depends on the carnage in this election. If Mitch is still speaker, it won’t happen.

Do you really think though, that they have any chance with any of the hot button issues I noted in a previous post?

Most, no. Abortion, second amendment, no. I think Biden is going to make healthcare his primary issue. Republicans will be offered a seat at the table, just like last time. Hard to say whether any will sit. They should. It’s a popular issue. Not saying they should vote for a bill they don’t believe in, but a good faith negotiation would be a big change at this point. I think there is common ground there and in immigration. Because voters on both sides both generally support .

Do you think Biden is strong enough to tell the radicals on the left to STFU so that he can work on reconciliation? Do you think any of the current leaders of the Democrats in Congress are wanting to work with the Republicans to solve some of these issues other than getting their way?

The cynical side of me believes that a politician will say anything to get elected and make deals with the devil for the same result. Biden has been a politician in Washingtom DC for 47 years and he has played and is playing the game. He gets elected, whatever deals he has made will determine who gets what and where we go from here.

I don't trust politicians.

They are all political animals and sometimes have to consider the make up of the voters who put them there. Too bad it isn't all the time, so I get what you are trying to allude to.

I just don't see the politicians you listed, as well as Biden, if elected, bucking the Democrat establishment, their agenda and their goals. As long as the congressional leadership is made up of Pelosi and Schumer, and all the committee heads are the like of Schiff and Waters, nothing is going to change in Washington.

I just fundamentally disagree that a politician has to believe in something to get a job done. Trump doesn’t believe in jack ****. Bernie Sanders seems like a true believer. Which one do you think has been more effective? Trump has advanced grievance populism more in the last 4 years than Bernie did in the prior 30. I think Buttigieg is much more progressive than his platform, but he saw what the electorate wanted and offered it. He just banked on Biden fizzling out and was wrong.

Biden has already firmly broken with the progressives on multiple issues. He doesn’t strike me as somebody who believes strongly in anything. His career has been acting on voter mandates. And he clearly knows what this mandate is because he’s still campaigning with an eye toward picking off moderate republicans.

If democrats take the senate I think they will generally follow his lead rather than vice versa. If they try to do something crazy, like nuke the filibuster and dissolve the insurance industry, that would be on their heads the next time the electorate has a chance to say something.

 

[37L1]

Not at all trying to be overly dismissive of this. So I’ll take some of it point by point. But overall, I just don’t agree that a politician needs to be some sort of true believer or zealot or something.


Politicians are no different from lawyers [insert jokes here]. Whether they believe it or not is immaterial. It’s whether they do their job and represent the interests correctly. I wouldn’t vote for Sasse if he were my senator for exactly the reason you identified. I think towing the line for Trump is a sign of bad judgment. His attempt to exit isn’t compelling at this point. But, it’s a sign that he sees the writing in the wall and if that writing says “shut the **** up and get it done.” Then that’s what they’ll do. Both sides.



Correct, but not the point you asked about. It underscores the fact that those two broke the picket line.



I don’t know what he said about Barrett other than that his marriage may be affected. That seems plausible. I think if he campaigned on reconciliation and got elected, he would have attempted to work with Republicans. I think Biden will as well. Whether they can get any to work with them probably depends on the carnage in this election. If Mitch is still speaker, it won’t happen.



Most, no. Abortion, second amendment, no. I think Biden is going to make healthcare his primary issue. Republicans will be offered a seat at the table, just like last time. Hard to say whether any will sit. They should. It’s a popular issue. Not saying they should vote for a bill they don’t believe in, but a good faith negotiation would be a big change at this point. I think there is common ground there and in immigration. Because voters on both sides both generally support .



I just fundamentally disagree that a politician has to believe in something to get a job done. Trump doesn’t believe in jack ****. Bernie Sanders seems like a true believer. Which one do you think has been more effective? Trump has advanced grievance populism more in the last 4 years than Bernie did in the prior 30. I think Buttigieg is much more progressive than his platform, but he saw what the electorate wanted and offered it. He just banked on Biden fizzling out and was wrong.

Biden has already firmly broken with the progressives on multiple issues. He doesn’t strike me as somebody who believes strongly in anything. His career has been acting on voter mandates. And he clearly knows what this mandate is because he’s still campaigning with an eye toward picking off moderate republicans.

If democrats take the senate I think they will generally follow his lead rather than vice versa. If they try to do something crazy, like nuke the filibuster and dissolve the insurance industry, that would be on their heads the next time the electorate has a chance to say something.

Not going to argue point by point because the idealist part of me wants to believe (like Mulder) while the cynic/realist part of me knows that it has about as much chance.

You have way more faith in Biden and Buttigieg than I do. For instance, if Biden wins and he keeps his promise to make Beto his "2nd Amendment guy" we will all know where this is heading and it won't be in the direction you are hoping for. The response and fall out to this will set the tone for other efforts and doom them.

If the Democrats take the Senate, House and Presidency, I'm pretty sure you will see a whole slew of their agenda items getting pushed through that will continue to alienate a big chunk of the population and the cycle of entrenchment and resistance will continue and even get worse. I don't see a Biden veto on the horizon either.

I don't even want to get started with Harris and the possibility that Biden won't be healthy enough to finish his first term. But I guess I will, just a little. She certainly is not one to take up the mantle of "reconciliation" never has and never will. But one never knows, if she reads where the country strongly wants her to go to maintain power, she'll turn on a dime, give a nickle change, because that's who she is, based upon past performance. But the country is divided on these key issues, and she is not above using these divsions to her own ends.

So, it's the majority of the country responsibility to send a clear message about what they want out of government and I'm not sure that anyone knows what that is and how to deliver it without the message getting "massaged" and filtered through our information sources today which are far from unbiased.

 

[LouderVol]

Not sure that your K-town anecdote supports your thesis. Some people on an anonymous message board will always be there to use harsh rhetoric. My position that the division is more consuming than ever is based on how politicized everything is right now. Sports, for one. I don't bring up sports in casual conversation because I don't want to run the risk of it turning into a political discussion. My facebook feed would be unbearable if I hadn't started ignoring people. I know so many people who had nothing to do with politics 5 years ago and suddenly find themselves in a battle of good vs. evil and they can't STFU about it.

Maybe it's different in my corner of the world, but it wasn't like this at all 5 years ago.

I think the sports aspect and the everything getting politicized goes back further than 5 years. It's just all coming to a head. How long have people been trying to get the Washington Football Team to change its name? Or any number of others. Coaches skin color mattered? Forced diversity in general? Green tech in cars, expanded EPA controls/regulations. Politics have been weeding their way in to everyday life for a while. You can argue that it's for the better, but you cant make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Heck paper vs plastic, and not to leave out the Rs look at all the terrorism response to things ie TSA and other expanded actions by government agencies. You cant increase government involvement in life and not expect politics to show up. Unintended or not, but with how it favors the two parties I see it as pretty intentional, it's been there.

Going back to my point on Trump, I think what's happened in the last 5 years is that it has made people aware of what's been going on for much longer. It's no longer covert, but overt. For me it goes all the way back to at least whenever I became politically aware, 15+ years ago. I cant speak beyond that but I bet it goes back further. And being overt doesnt make it any worse for me than when it was covert.

As long as representation is split and not actually representative, government involvement will lead to this type of politicalization.

 

[LouderVol]

This. So much this. Bright side I guess, is that I would probably have battery charges pending in a half dozen states if you could throat punch somebody through the internet. I dont really let people get under my skin anymore...but the 1st couple years on VN ....I took things way too personally, and let strangers make me angry.

Wise words I heard long ago:

Nobody can hurt you, make you angry, embarrass you etc unless you ALLOW them to do so. You needlessly empower other people when you let them change your mood

And nothing deflates your attacker more than seeing you smile and give an honest laugh.

 

[n_huffhines]

I think the sports aspect and the everything getting politicized goes back further than 5 years. It's just all coming to a head. How long have people been trying to get the Washington Football Team to change its name? Or any number of others. Coaches skin color mattered? Forced diversity in general? Green tech in cars, expanded EPA controls/regulations. Politics have been weeding their way in to everyday life for a while. You can argue that it's for the better, but you cant make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Heck paper vs plastic, and not to leave out the Rs look at all the terrorism response to things ie TSA and other expanded actions by government agencies. You cant increase government involvement in life and not expect politics to show up. Unintended or not, but with how it favors the two parties I see it as pretty intentional, it's been there.

Going back to my point on Trump, I think what's happened in the last 5 years is that it has made people aware of what's been going on for much longer. It's no longer covert, but overt. For me it goes all the way back to at least whenever I became politically aware, 15+ years ago. I cant speak beyond that but I bet it goes back further. And being overt doesnt make it any worse for me than when it was covert.

As long as representation is split and not actually representative, government involvement will lead to this type of politicalization.

Why did the politicization of sports come to a head now? I would say it's probably because the POTUS took athletes head on, stooping to call players SOB's and demanding their teams take action against them. The celebrity president's cohorts are on national TV saying "shut up and dribble."

Imagine Obama or Bush calling workers in any industry SOB's. In the age of Trump, you can't just take a position (which like you say, people have always done). You have to be despised or loved for it.

 

[RockyTop85]

Not going to argue point by point because the idealist part of me wants to believe (like Mulder) while the cynic/realist part of me knows that it has about as much chance.

You have way more faith in Biden and Buttigieg than I do. For instance, if Biden wins and he keeps his promise to make Beto his "2nd Amendment guy" we will all know where this is heading and it won't be in the direction you are hoping for. The response and fall out to this will set the tone for other efforts and doom them.

If the Democrats take the Senate, House and Presidency, I'm pretty sure you will see a whole slew of their agenda items getting pushed through that will continue to alienate a big chunk of the population and the cycle of entrenchment and resistance will continue and even get worse. I don't see a Biden veto on the horizon either.

I don't even want to get started with Harris and the possibility that Biden won't be healthy enough to finish his first term. But I guess I will, just a little. She certainly is not one to take up the mantle of "reconciliation" never has and never will. But one never knows, if she reads where the country strongly wants her to go to maintain power, she'll turn on a dime, give a nickle change, because that's who she is, based upon past performance. But the country is divided on these key issues, and she is not above using these divsions to her own ends.

So, it's the majority of the country responsibility to send a clear message about what they want out of government and I'm not sure that anyone knows what that is and how to deliver it without the message getting "massaged" and filtered through our information sources today which are far from unbiased.

I don’t see what’s idealist about expecting them to pursue their own personal interests. Aside from Buttigieg, who I actually like, or Amash, who I thought proposed a more appropriate scope of federal government, I don’t expect anything other than that when it comes to the low hanging fruit of basic governance. Which means that neither party should act as a monolith because Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema et. al. should have more in common with Ben Sasse, Shelley Capito, or Mitt Romney than they do with Diane Feinstein or Chuck Schumer. That leaves room for a bipartisan coalition of moderates. And the more red state democrats

I’m not saying they become a Unitarian party in universal agreement, it’s not going to happen on abortion or the second amendment. It doesn’t need to. What needs to happen is that Republicans are offered a seat at the table, accept, and engage in good faith attempts at legislation on areas where there is a mandate and where common ground can be found. Immigration and healthcare are among those.

Frankly, if Republicans are smart, they start talking to their constituents about climate legislation and figuring out an alternative to the green new deal. Preserving the environment is a big deal to a lot of conservative outdoorsmen. I don’t have the opportunity to hike and camp as much as I used to, but my father in law owns property where he hunts and fishes. He recycles, they bought an electric car for my MiL to offset his truck, he’s probably going to vote for Trump and he probably wouldn’t be offended by government efforts to curb climate change. Maybe something as small as phasing in electric vehicles in the federal workforce.

The barrier, to tie it all together, is the dehumanizing language and illiberal mindset of both parties’ fringes. There is evidence on this forum that there’s a sizable minority or possibly even a majority of republicans who think democrats are evil. Go elsewhere and you can find a good number of progressives who think republicans are evil. That kind of thinking has to be pushed back into the minority for both parties before any kind of reconciliation can occur, otherwise everybody will be too afraid of losing a primary to do their damn jobs.

 

[LouderVol]

Why did the politicization of sports come to a head now? I would say it's probably because the POTUS took athletes head on, stooping to call players SOB's and demanding their teams take action against them. The celebrity president's cohorts are on national TV saying "shut up and dribble."

Imagine Obama or Bush calling workers in any industry SOB's. In the age of Trump, you can't just take a position (which people have always done). You have to be despised or loved for it.

And I dont think that's a Trump thing.

Again go back one presidency, and not saying Obama started it. Look at the green tech stuff. You either bought Obama's bs or you were trying to kill the world. You either bought into a much expanded EPA and Kyoto Accords or you were environmental terrorist. Maybe it's because it effects my industry but there were some drastic shifts from '08 to '16.

I think like anything it's where some people's sensibilities lie. If you generally agree with one side you arent going to register the effects of their actions as much. But when the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly the same step rubs you wrong and you notice.

The Trump shoe generally fits much fewer people so more people notice the effect. Again overt vs covert. Most politicians belittle us behind our backs, Trump walks up and says it to our face. End result is the same.

 

[LouderVol]

I don’t see what’s idealist about expecting them to pursue their own personal interests. Aside from Buttigieg, who I actually like, or Amash, who I thought proposed a more appropriate scope of federal government, I don’t expect anything other than that when it comes to the low hanging fruit of basic governance. Which means that neither party should act as a monolith because Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema et. al. should have more in common with Ben Sasse, Shelley Capito, or Mitt Romney than they do with Diane Feinstein or Chuck Schumer. That leaves room for a bipartisan coalition of moderates. And the more red state democrats

I’m not saying they become a Unitarian party in universal agreement, it’s not going to happen on abortion or the second amendment. It doesn’t need to. What needs to happen is that Republicans are offered a seat at the table, accept, and engage in good faith attempts at legislation on areas where there is a mandate and where common ground can be found. Immigration and healthcare are among those.

Frankly, if Republicans are smart, they start talking to their constituents about climate legislation and figuring out an alternative to the green new deal. Preserving the environment is a big deal to a lot of conservative outdoorsmen. I don’t have the opportunity to hike and camp as much as I used to, but my father in law owns property where he hunts and fishes. He recycles, they bought an electric car for my MiL to offset his truck, he’s probably going to vote for Trump and he probably wouldn’t be offended by government efforts to curb climate change. Maybe something as small as phasing in electric vehicles in the federal workforce.

The barrier, to tie it all together, is the dehumanizing language and illiberal mindset of both parties’ fringes. There is evidence on this forum that there’s a sizable minority or possibly even a majority of republicans who think democrats are evil. Go elsewhere and you can find a good number of progressives who think republicans are evil. That kind of thinking has to be pushed back into the minority for both parties before any kind of reconciliation can occur, otherwise everybody will be too afraid of losing a primary to do their damn jobs.

I always thought the green tech stuff was more of a conversative/Republican applicable field than liberal/Democrat. Here's a chance to rid you of the government in one aspect of life, utilities, and to make you more independent. But instead the Dems used it as a weapon and did everything they could to rile up the Rs with it.

And just like this thread says, you now cant have a conversation about green without it being political. And imo it's because it was forced instead of allowed to happen.

 

[n_huffhines]

And I dont think that's a Trump thing.

Again go back one presidency, and not saying Obama started it. Look at the green tech stuff. You either bought Obama's bs or you were trying to kill the world. You either bought into a much expanded EPA and Kyoto Accords or you were environmental terrorist. Maybe it's because it effects my industry but there were some drastic shifts from '08 to '16.

I think like anything it's where some people's sensibilities lie. If you generally agree with one side you arent going to register the effects of their actions as much. But when the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly the same step rubs you wrong and you notice.

The Trump shoe generally fits much fewer people so more people notice the effect. Again overt vs covert. Most politicians belittle us behind our backs, Trump walks up and says it to our face. End result is the same.

You mean to tell me that Obama's political initiatives were politicized? You're just talking about division and I'm talking about the inability to escape the division. I remember the EPA expansion and green tech initiatives. I don't remember thinking "I'm just gonna avoid Facebook today because I'm tired of hearing about green tech." I don't remember my friends hating people over that issue. I don't remember the POTUS calling coal industry people SOB's.

 

[happy-go_vol]

Characterizing the entire party by a few elected officials is not “dehumanizing” but it doesn’t seem like a legitimate exercise, either.

Aside from the fact that I was talking about the democratic electorate at large and not elected officials, do you legitimately want me to name moderate democrat elected officials? How many will make you happy?

Yeah name one "moderate dem" that will actually support normal families, marriage and be pro-life. Name one that wields any type of influence in congress. The leadership in the new marxist party are just that, marxist.

 

[RockyTop85]

Yeah name one "moderate dem" that will actually support normal families, marriage and be pro-life. Name one that wields any type of influence in congress. The leadership in the new marxist party are just that, marxist.

Keep reading.

There are elements of the Democratic Party and the electorate that are farther left than I’m comfortable with, and who have an authoritarian bent to their politics, but generalizing the entire party based on them is ignorant and foolish.

Just as there are different types of republicans, there are different types of democrats. The biggest distinction right now is that republicans nominated their grievance populist candidate over the field of others. Democrats rejected theirs.

 

[LouderVol]

You mean to tell me that Obama's political initiatives were politicized? You're just talking about division and I'm talking about the inability to escape the division. I remember the EPA expansion and green tech initiatives. I don't remember thinking "I'm just gonna avoid Facebook today because I'm tired of hearing about green tech." I don't remember my friends hating people over that issue. I don't remember the POTUS calling coal industry people SOB's.

Again he hid it better. And it's not just Obama. Look at our thread on the matter or Greta Thunberg or any number of others. Come join me at a green conference and you get the politicization right there. There was one hosted at GTech while I was working and there the first table you walked in on was a shrine to Obama selling merch.

Your point about seeing it is my point. You arent/weren't in a place where you picked up on it. So for YOU it's new. But really it's been going on for years.

Part of the problem is empathy. Neither side has any. It doesnt effect me, so I dont care.

Personally I dont care about the stuff Trump says or does. But I understand that people dont like it and have real issues with it. Yet so often the same courtesy isnt extended to the "conservatives" by the PC world. We had issues with whatever but were told to shut up and listen to the enlightened betters. Our complaints didnt matter because "muh Obama", while "muh Trump" is the word of the day.

It goes back to it being ok to disagree with each other. I am used to it. I grew up with some major conservatives, have stayed libertarian, but work with, live around, and am friends with mostly liberals. But most people dont have that level of exposure. And so it's not ok, you are rejecting my stance because you dont agree with it. Which is odd because the whole debate centers around personal experiences and how its lead to/effected by dehumanizing talk.

 

[37L1]

I don’t see what’s idealist about expecting them to pursue their own personal interests. Aside from Buttigieg, who I actually like, or Amash, who I thought proposed a more appropriate scope of federal government, I don’t expect anything other than that when it comes to the low hanging fruit of basic governance. Which means that neither party should act as a monolith because Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema et. al. should have more in common with Ben Sasse, Shelley Capito, or Mitt Romney than they do with Diane Feinstein or Chuck Schumer. That leaves room for a bipartisan coalition of moderates. And the more red state democrats

I’m not saying they become a Unitarian party in universal agreement, it’s not going to happen on abortion or the second amendment. It doesn’t need to. What needs to happen is that Republicans are offered a seat at the table, accept, and engage in good faith attempts at legislation on areas where there is a mandate and where common ground can be found. Immigration and healthcare are among those.

Frankly, if Republicans are smart, they start talking to their constituents about climate legislation and figuring out an alternative to the green new deal. Preserving the environment is a big deal to a lot of conservative outdoorsmen. I don’t have the opportunity to hike and camp as much as I used to, but my father in law owns property where he hunts and fishes. He recycles, they bought an electric car for my MiL to offset his truck, he’s probably going to vote for Trump and he probably wouldn’t be offended by government efforts to curb climate change. Maybe something as small as phasing in electric vehicles in the federal workforce.

The barrier, to tie it all together, is the dehumanizing language and illiberal mindset of both parties’ fringes. There is evidence on this forum that there’s a sizable minority or possibly even a majority of republicans who think democrats are evil. Go elsewhere and you can find a good number of progressives who think republicans are evil. That kind of thinking has to be pushed back into the minority for both parties before any kind of reconciliation can occur, otherwise everybody will be too afraid of losing a primary to do their damn jobs.

I agree with you that if, what you hope for comes to pass, that it is a positive outcome.

My pessimism is hard to overcome though. I still remember the Pelosi gavel parade after ACA was passed. I also remember the attitude of Trump/supporters when he took steps to undo Obama's "legacy." Both sides manage to put the ass in class.

My prognostication is that if the Democrats control the House, Senate and Presidency there will be a move rush to undo Trump's "legacy", by going after "assault weapons" (ha), packing the Supreme Court, deleting filibuster, reanimating ACA, GND, broadening immigrant protections/benefits/entry, free education (and just about anything else), higher taxes on almost everybody, speeding up the rate of deficit growth (which already is approaching Mach 1) further abortion protections/funding, cuts to law enforcement and the military, etc., etc., etc. I don't foresee the progressive/socialist wing backing off and I really don't see Biden standing in front of that speeding bus of revenge/agenda. If all or most or any (depending) occur, the division in this country will become beyond repair (if it isn't aready).

For once I can truly say I hope you are right and that I am wrong.

 

[RockyTop85]

I agree with you that if, what you hope for comes to pass, that it is a positive outcome.

My pessimism is hard to overcome though. I still remember the Pelosi gavel parade after ACA was passed. I also remember the attitude of Trump/supporters when he took steps to undo Obama's "legacy." Both sides manage to put the ass in class.

My prognostication is that if the Democrats control the House, Senate and Presidency there will be a move rush to undo Trump's "legacy", by going after "assault weapons" (ha), packing the Supreme Court, deleting filibuster, reanimating ACA, GND, broadening immigrant protections/benefits/entry, free education (and just about anything else), higher taxes on almost everybody, speeding up the rate of deficit growth (which already is approaching Mach 1) further abortion protections/funding, cuts to law enforcement and the military, etc., etc., etc. I don't foresee the progressive/socialist wing backing off and I really don't see Biden standing in front of that speeding bus of revenge/agenda. If all or most or any (depending) occur, the division in this country will become beyond repair (if it isn't aready).

For once I can truly say I hope you are right and that I am wrong.

If they do that, it’ll be a short lived victory. It’ll just swing back to Republicans, if they can field somebody worth a damn.

 

[37L1]

If they do that, it’ll be a short lived victory. It’ll just swing back to Republicans, if they can field somebody worth a damn.

Then back to the Democrats if they can find somebody not one step away from life support.

See, see what you made me do? I'm a nice person really.

 

[RockyTop85]

Then back to the Democrats if they can find somebody not one step away from life support.

See, see what you made me do? I'm a nice person really.

Seemed relevant.

 

[RockyTop85]

 

[37L1]

So, when are you moving?

 

[RockyTop85]

So, when are you moving?

Honestly, my first reaction was “damn, I kind of want to move to Utah.”

 

[37L1]

Honestly, my first reaction was “damn, I kind of want to move to Utah.”

Nothing can stop you, now.

 

[RockyTop85]

Nothing can stop you, now.

My wife.

 

[37L1]

My wife.

She Who Must Be Obeyed. or "SWMBO."

So she didn't buy the, "But Honey, they are civil towards each other out there" argument, huh? LOL.

Mine is the reason I'm in Tennessee. No need to thank her.

 

[hog88]

My wife.

Sure about that?

 

[hog88]

She Who Must Be Obeyed. or "SWMBO."

So she didn't buy the, "But Honey, they are civil towards each other out there" argument, huh? LOL.

Mine is the reason I'm in Tennessee. No need to thank her.

Mine is the only reason I'm still in middle TN.