Not "in" Gods green earth... but "on"... but carry on.
Not "Not 'in' Gods green earth... but 'on'... but carry on."...but "Not 'in' God's green earth... but 'on'... but carry on." but carry on...
Not "in" Gods green earth... but "on"... but carry on.
Not "Not 'in' Gods green earth... but 'on'... but carry on."...but "Not 'in' God's green earth... but 'on'... but carry on." but carry on...
So the deflection of your incorrectness shows vast insecurity.
Carry on.
No, my deflection of my incorrectness onto yours shows that this is an internet forum and not a scientific publication. I already write more pretentiously than I should for this format, and I **** up egregiously in first drafts of important documents all the time. I don't want to have to send my posts to a proofreader to maintain some sort of forum reputation of pristine writing. I prefer to take internet forum posts on their content rather than on a grammatical or stylistic error. Identifying prose **** ups or stupid writing errors is something I've never done, nor intend to do. It may give one a sense of superiority to identify these on the internet, but I take this writing format for what it is. I'm already tense enough.
You should be less tense.
I love you as a brother already... and look for opportunities to connect rather than disconnect... but take into account "your kind."
Do you watch "Entertainment Tonight" by chance?LOL .. according to CNN polls 54% of people thought Hillary won the debate and Trump got 37%.
Were we watching the same debate?!?! LOL .. Trump clearly got the better of Hillary in this one.
This is ridiculous. Clinton could have said exactly what Trump said. Most people in Trump's position would have withdrawn from the race 20 times over by now. I thought he was done after the McCain comment, and that now seems like almost noting in light of all the other campaign killing moments he's created and survived since then. Or she could say that he's a hard worker. Can that be denied? His campaign schedule seems insane to me. Or she could say she admires his ability to look out for his own interests (sort of a back-handed insult). Or she could say she admires his hair (which would have gotten a laugh). Or she could say she's in awe of his ability to promote himself, or to get the media to talk about him, or to energize his base, or to hold large campaign events, or to perform at a high level in multiple careers, or to bed women, or to accumulate wealth...I **** you not, if I had 24 hours to come up with an answer to that question they asked about Trump, I would struggle heartily to answer it with a straight face. What would you say about Trump and be able to say it with a straight face and without eliciting laughter from the crowd? I thought her answer was fine, but she should have maybe emphasized Trump's role in who they are a bit more. In reality, he had very little to do with their upbringing (boarding schools etc.), and the man has a disturbingly long history of acting and expressing his "admiration" for his daughter in non-plutonic parlance. I couldn't have given Clinton's answer with a straight face.
Do you watch "Entertainment Tonight" by chance?
If not, you should. I think you would love it.
Or she could say she's in awe of his ability to promote himself, or to get the media to talk about him, or to energize his base, or to hold large campaign events, or to perform at a high level in multiple careers, or to bed women, or to accumulate wealth...
So all of the politicians who we've seen taken down by scandals (this has happened many, many times) were simply lacking a large enough ego? IMO there's a lot more to it than that, but even if there's not his ability to survive is amazing.His drive is based on his ego, so I don't know why his staying power would surprise you.