Brad_ATX

What's sad is your inability to read. It's a big reason why I usually stray from engaging with you, as you rarely hold honest conversation. I absolutely think things need to happen. I laid those out in an earlier post, which was a direct response to you. Go back and read again. But if your contention is that we should try and convince people that alternative methods of sex are just as good as traditional intercourse, then you're sadly mistaken to the realities of sex and human behavior.

Not the only option is correct. Are there others that are "just as satisfying"? Uh, nope. I've done a decent amount of exploring and sorry, but nothing comes close to the experience of togetherness you feel with someone through traditional sexual means. The brain adds to kink and fantasy, which are all great. It doesn't allow for touch, which is essential.

So society has to stop doing what we as humans are programmed to do? Good luck with that. The best and most consistent option has been sex education. Teach people. Have open conversations. Our society needs to stop acting like sex is a terrible thing and instead embrace the facts that people like to get down and dirty, there's nothing wrong with it, and we can do it in a healthy manner. Also, as many satisfying options as vaginal intercourse? You serious Clark?

Here's the thing people forget about the attitude era: the wrestling largely sucked. Matches today and even in the 80s were sooooo much better. For the most part, the attitude era was annoyingly short sighted and told horrible stories both in and out of the ring. Know I'm in the minority here, but I don't miss it one bit. Give me booking and performances like current day NXT over that stuff any day.

MITB was largely entertaining from an in ring perspective, but the booking for bigger angles sucked (outside of the women's division). Shane/Miz continues? No thanks. Brock is back? Gross. AEW can't get here quick enough.

I see where you're coming from and it's an interesting perspective, but then I read direct quotes from Wal-Mart execs stating that prices on Chinese imported products will rise for their customers. That's bad news for middle class and lower class consumers as they are Wal-Mart's primary demographic. https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/business/walmart-earnings-stock-tariffs-trump-china/index.html I don't subscribe to this being an all or nothing situation with tariffs, but the point that has been consistently glossed over about prices rising for American consumers is now coming to fruition.

This is the wrong question to ask. It's $3M year over year. The question is what was the resort bringing in BEFORE he became president? If it was lower than the baseline of last year (or 2017, his first year in office), then yes, he's making more now off of that property than he did before taking the oath of office, even with a year over year drop.

Correct on the hook. They're able to charge that much because the loans often go to extremely high risk borrowers with terrible credit. I'm sure the rates of non-payment are staggering. But roughly 10% of the population has taken a payday loan at least once in their life.

Try close to a 400% APR on average. They're beyond crazy.

I think this is the point you're missing. To those of us who have been preached to about morality by evangelicals for years and it's importance in a candidate, it became very hypocritical to see some prominent evangelical leaders and many of their followers openly supporting Trump at the beginning of the primary season. With this framework, the choice of Trump vs Clinton isn't one that most of us question because they both have some seedy histories, plus people tend to vote for their preferred party's nominee no matter what. It's the choice made of Trump vs the other Republican options during the primary season that remains baffling, considering Trump's seemingly antithetical approach to evangelical values based on his actions. In doing so, those evangelicals and the leaders who supported Trump early abandoned all moral high ground and severely discredited their witness among those of us who don't necessarily believe.

Great. That happened LONG after the primaries. I'm talking about the choices evangelicals had during the primary season here and trying to understand why many, including big name evangelical leaders, still chose Trump over other Republicans. I get the argument of backing him vs Hillary. But evangelicals that were behind Trump from the beginning have no moral ground to stand on.

I'm not wrong. There were 15 choices in the Republican primary and yet he still won a good amount of support from evangelicals and some major evangelical leaders. Falwell Jr endorsed Trump in January of 2016, right at the beginning of primary season. Dr. James Dobson also endorsed in January 2016. The list goes on. The folks you know and yourself are a infinitely small number compared to the overall trend. For example, there are African-Americans who vote Republican. I wouldn't take them as the authority when numbers and greater evidence show otherwise.

This is 100% false. Evangelicals had the opportunity to back one of 15 Republican candidates in the primary season. Many still chose Trump during that period. To argue it was a one or the other proposition is misleading at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Oh I have zero desire to play the tips. Not a prove my manhood kind of golfer. Out there for the experience of playing a world class course.

Definitely playing the Black. Planning on doing it the old fashioned way: crashing in a car all night for the early open times.