Friday, December 3, 2010

"Progressive" INSURANCE?

SURPRISE!! No WONDER they call it "PROGRESSIVE" INSURANCE.   Check THIS OUT.  And don't buy that insurance anymore!  (oh, and check out the SNOPES disclaimers at the bottom, which they typically do when they have to admit a criticism of someone on the left is true!.. Yes, the SNOPES which they claim is unbiased :-)
Who know PROGRESSIVE was in the political sense of the word, right?  

geeeeeeZ!!

47 comments:

Always On Watch said...

Lewis also supported Proposition 19.

I read somewhere that he's a recreational cocaine user, but I don't know that for a fact.

Always On Watch said...

Check out Discover the Networks' information on Peter Lewis.

Ducky's here said...

Flo's a commie? Wow, who knew.

FrogBurger said...

I can't take those commercials. She's to commericials what Obama is to politics to me: overexposed.

I always suspected the name was off as a brand for an insurance company.
And I wasn't surprised when I learned the name had a meaning.

Well I'll stick to the little gecko guy.

Ticker said...

The socialist hate capitalism and are determined that it must end.

In order to carry out their goal of remedying the worlds ills they must destroy capitalism in order to complete the redistribution of the world’s wealth.  To them nothing short of total destruction will correct the mammoth inequities in today’s economic structures.  We hear and see this constantly in this country from the administration currently seated in Washington and from the so called “progressives” who while losing nothing themselves are more than anxious to redistribute the wealth of others, once again taking from the producers and giving to non-producers. Capitalism is being kept alive for now in order to provide for the production capabilities and resources to fuel socialism's worldwide redistribution rampage. Socialist, such as Peter Lewis, is a perfect example of how the very system that made him wealthy is being used to further the dreams of a socialist Utopian one world government.

A number of my friends canceled their insurance with Progressive during the 08 campaign when I pointed out to them that the owner of “Progressive” was a supporter of Obama. Of course nothing was heard in the news since people like him chose to remain hidden, cloaked in the darkness of deception so that they may carry out their evil intent. Of course they will not be hurt by all of this. They are the ones who will profit and live like kings in the One World Order scheme of things.

Z said...

Ticker, did you see the bottom of the SNOPES "TRUE" information? The backpedaling? Cracks me up.

Z said...

by the way, Ticker...
WHERE ARE THE REPUBLICANS on SO much of this?
THE DREAM ACT, etc etc........they're quiet, they're NOT FIGHTING! geesh

Craig said...

In order to carry out their goal of remedying the worlds ills they must destroy capitalism in order to complete the redistribution of the world’s wealth.

Who, besides bankers, are destroying Capitalism? Have you followed the Fed audit? Who got bailed out? Who's left holding the bag? We are, Ticker. Who's getting all this redistributed wealth? Wall Street and the bankers got the money, we got their worthless "assets".

To fix a liquidity crisis, the Fed has had a longstanding policy of offering short-term, low interest loans. In exchange for these loans, the Fed demands high-quality collateral. That’s as it should be: if a bank is truly experiencing a liquidity crisis, there is a public interest in keeping it afloat so it can meet its financial obligations.

And so in 2007 and 2008, the Fed created several facilities to ease liquidity based on this principle. The trouble is, starting on Sept. 15, 2008—right when Lehman Brothers was going under—the Fed started accepting total garbage as collateral for its loans. Not just a little bit of garbage, either. According to data released by the Fed yesterday, the central bank accepted $1.32 trillion in collateral rated “junk bond” status or lower, starting Sept. 15, through it Primary Dealer Credit Facility alone. That compares to $8.95 trillion in total loans extended through the Primary Dealer outlet from March 2008 through May 2009. From Sept. 15 onward, the Fed lend out $7.60 trillion through this window alone, meaning that a full 17 percent of its lending from this point was backed by junk bonds, or worse.

Article

There was a time in this country when the rich pitched in, sacrificed something, when the country was in trouble. They managed to stay rich, too.

Of course nothing was heard in the news since people like him chose to remain hidden, cloaked in the darkness of deception so that they may carry out their evil intent.

How did you find out if it was hidden? Does he need to take out an ad when he contributes to a candidate or organization? It's on the public record.

Contributing to Democrats is evil, huh? Your comment is bordering on paranoia. It certainly reveals your lack of information.

FrogBurger said...

There was a time in this country when the rich pitched in, sacrificed something, when the country was in trouble. They managed to stay rich, too.

Craig, the rich have been demonized by the lefty policies, mostly based on sheer jealousy since the 60s, here and in Europe.

The left consider people rich around 200k a year. The top 50% of tax payer pay over 80% of taxes. (I don't have the precise stats in mind so I might be off under or over).

The 60s generations screwed my generation over big time.
Not only they hypocritically enjoyed the post war wealth, while talking about zero growth, blaming capitalism but now they're running the show, enjoying the money they happily invested and LECTURING me. In the meantime they left over 10% steady unemployment in my country since the 80s, impoverished Europe and now those fools are doing it to the US.

So stop blaming the rich. The hippies, the pot smokers, the free love Woodstock folks screwed us over.

Their legacy is only SHIT, moral and financial decay. Sorry.

I really can't take it anymore. CAN YOU LOOK AT YOUR IDEA'S RESULTS AND LOOK AT THE FACTS? Unsustainable, is it a word you understand?

As we say in French, you have "salami skin over the eyes."

Craig said...

So stop blaming the rich. The hippies, the pot smokers, the free love Woodstock folks screwed us over.

I don't blame all rich people. So, it was the hippies that came up with credit default swaps?


I really can't take it anymore. CAN YOU LOOK AT YOUR IDEA'S RESULTS AND LOOK AT THE FACTS? Unsustainable, is it a word you understand?


Do you even know what my ideas are? Tax cuts and deregulation haven't worked. Republicans ran up the debt. Middle class incomes stagnated or fell. Wealth has been redistributed upward. Them's the facts.

Anonymous said...

I can't stand the look of those commercials, and the airhead saleswoman.

I always wondered about the name too. I thought it had to have a meaning, and what else could it be?

The fact the leftists call themselves progressives is the biggest joke of all. They couldn't be more regressive if they tried.

Pris

beamish said...

My car and my apartment are both insured by Progressive. Part of it is the extremely affordable rate they offer, and maybe part of it is the weird crush I have on "Flo."

Whatever Lewis does with his takehome pay doesn't bother me. Seems to me his business model is based entirely on capitalism and logistics. Progressive doesn't insure you directly, they simply find and pay an insurer who will, most of them are small businesses networked together.

I've personally benefitted from Progressive. One time I was on the side of the road with a blown out front tire in snow, rain, and ice. Progressive's roadside assistance network had someone on the scene changing my tire within 10 minutes. They found the closest company that could service my car and paid them directly. There was no wait for an affiliated service provider or hoops to jump through. They just paid whoever was nearest to my location to come change my tire, and got it done. Money is the universal language, and for 5 dollars a month, I can break down anywhere and feel confident that help is on the way, no bullshit.

That's quality I can be loyal to.

Ticker said...

Most rich donors to political parties are given notice in the media either by attending a "gala" or such, which by the way Peter did but no mention was made of it in the media. So Criag what else would you call it other than hiding (deceptive).

I discoved the FACTS by doing some reasearch for a blog on this jackass and his involvement with George Soros.

The following is an excerpt from that Blog which was titled:

The Failure of Wachovia, Courtesy of Soros and Friends Published:Friday, October 3, 2008
http://afticker.blogspot.com/2008/10/failure-of-wachovia-courtesy-of-soros_03.html

It seems the Sandlers were the ones who held the big shindig for Obama and all the LSM was there and many names were mentioned but NOT Peter Lewis. Now I wonder why???

How did this transpire and who are the Sandlers? Read here and find out and see the Soros connection that I have been talking about now for over a year and the October Surprise (September Surprise it turned out to be) to get Obama elected. Soros, the Sandlers Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance, Steven Bing are the names behind the 527’s that have pumped millions if not more into Obama’s campaign just as they pumped 78 million dollars in the failed election of John Kerry.

Now Craig do some research and gather some facts before questioning others or defending SOCIALIST or is that perhaps you intent?

Now Craig of course the BANKs got money just like IMF is getting billions of the taxpayers money and Craig if you knew anything about how all this came about you would not even question my statements. Of course you will blame BUSH and I blame him as well for even considering bail outs for anything. BUT OBAMA is the one who has continued it and demands even more and more to be thrown into the pit of socialist desire for One World Order. Read my Blog on Capitalism Craig and get a CLUE.

Ticker said...

Beemish, Farmers, Liberty Mutual, Sentry and a host of others do the same and I know for a fact that Farmers and Liberty Mutual are less expensive than Progressive. You might want to check it out.

beamish said...

Yes, but Farmers, Liberty Mutual, etc. don't have a cute girl in an apron in their commercials. It's the little things :P

I did a quick check on what Farmers and Liberty Mutual could save me...

...and they can't beat what Progressive's got me. And my rate with Progressive drops more in February when I've been with them for a year.

I just don't see a personal benefit to making a political stand / boycott against service providers based on what their owners do with their profits.

Bill Gates puts his money in to a bunch of charities I would never support even if I had to grip to do so. That isn't going to stop me from using computers anymore than what Google does with their money is going to stop me from using Blogger.

The economy is simply too integrated and inter-dependent to make boycotts really effective.

Ticker said...

Guess it must be the age difference Beemish or maybe the location. I was with Farmers for a number of years and moved to a state where they didn't write insurance. I picked up what is now Liberty Mutual and got one heck of a deal on my car and home. when I relocated I received an even bigger discount because of the location and also for being with them for over 5 years, no accidents, no claims.
I ain't much on the "cuteies" in aprons. hahahah. I had enough of those in my younger days, especially in Germany. hahahah.

beamish said...

it gets better with age

;)

Craig said...

Most rich donors to political parties are given notice in the media either by attending a "gala" or such, which by the way Peter did but no mention was made of it in the media.

Why is it his problem the media didn't report it, if, in fact, they didn't? BTW. It's all over the internet. You didn't have to dig too deep.

So Criag what else would you call it other than hiding (deceptive).

He's been quite open about his contributions. Tell me who contributed to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. They poured a couple hundred million into Republican campaigns this last cycle. That's hiding (deceptive). Thank you, Supreme Court.


Now Craig do some research and gather some facts before questioning others or defending SOCIALIST or is that perhaps you intent?

Your premise is, the Sandlers, Lewis, Soros , Obama and I are Socialists. That is utter nonsense. Soros has been turned into the Right's boogeyman but what do you really know about him? In his own words.

Of course you will blame BUSH and I blame him as well for even considering bail outs for anything.

I also blame Clinton and Obama. A Socialist wouldn't have Geitner and Summers on their economic team.


BUT OBAMA is the one who has continued it and demands even more and more to be thrown into the pit of socialist desire for One World Order.

Economists on the right and left agreed on a stimulus. The fight was over how much. Obama opted for 'not enough'. The One World Order will be ruled by Plutocrats, not Socialists.

Craig said...

beamish, the voice of reason. Bravo.


Oh, oh. Confirmation from a total moron (me). How do you handle that.

beamish said...

Oh, oh. Confirmation from a total moron (me). How do you handle that.

You're still well below the 730 times a year a stopped clock is correct.

ExPreacherMan said...

In January 06 I posted a warning of the Lewis, Progressive Insurance - Soros connection when Obama was merely a gleam in Soros' eye. As for me I will steer clear of anything "Progressive" or Soros.
Is Progressive Insurance really “progressive”?
Posted on January 18, 2006 by expreacherman| 21 Comments"

http://www.expreacherman.wordpress.com/2006/01/18/is-progressive-insurance-really-progressive/

Jack

FrogBurger said...

Sorry Craig but I had to vent.

I only lived I'd say 2-3 good years of great economy in my entire 38 year life so I get really touchy when people blame the wrong reason for economic troubles.

I don't know if you realize what it means to a psyche when the only thing you know as a teen then a young adult is steady 10+ unemployment, social structures and that are unmovable in Europe, low wages, high taxes, number of hours you can work regulated.

It's real CRAP.

And Obama's change meant all of that. The funny thing is that he calls that hope.

So I do get pissed off b/c the lefty intelligentsia of my parents' generation after doing their little revolution in 1968 took the money and now they don't want us to have it or enjoy the lifestyle they enjoyed. In my case I want to keep my freedom intact more then being interested in the material aspect they're so focused on (rich vs poor). Unfortunately the same people who defend weed legalization don't want me to eat too much salt or transfat.

Really, I detest those people.

Z said...

Craig! YOu said "Republicans ran up the debt."

STOP IT, CRAIG!! It's just plain SILLY.....CONGRESS runs the economy; Republicans gave Clinton his wonderful parting economy because they were in control of Congress, Dems ruined our economy when they came in the last few years of Bush's administration, talked him into TARP, turned blind eyes to the FIVE TIMES (at least) he warned about Freddie and Fannie, and STILL you people don't get it.
Watch the video sometime of Daniel Mudd, head of Fannie Mae PROMISING the Black Caucus (Obama was brand new) that ALL PEOPLE WILL GET A HOME! He looks like a deer in the headlight......it's nauseating.

STOP with the REPUBLICANS RUINED OUR ECONOMY, it really is just plain SILLY! :-)

Z said...

Thanks, Jack! You were sure right!

FrogBurger said...

Sorry Craig but I had to vent.

I only lived I'd say 2-3 good years of great economy in my entire 38 year life so I get really touchy when people blame the wrong reason for economic troubles.

I don't know if you realize what it means to a psyche when the only thing you know as a teen then a young adult is steady 10+ unemployment, social structures and that are unmovable in Europe, low wages, high taxes, number of hours you can work regulated.

It's real CRAP.

And Obama's change meant all of that. The funny thing is that he calls that hope.

So I do get pissed off b/c the lefty intelligentsia of my parents' generation after doing their little revolution in 1968 took the money and now they don't want us to have it or enjoy the lifestyle they enjoyed. In my case I want to keep my freedom intact more then being interested in the material aspect they're so focused on (rich vs poor). Unfortunately the same people who defend weed legalization don't want me to eat too much salt or transfat.

Really, I detest those people.

beamish said...

Unfortunately the same people who defend weed legalization don't want me to eat too much salt or transfat.

Seriously. Frito Lay and Taco Bell need to take over the weed legalization movement.

Ducky's here said...

@Crag - So, it was the hippies that came up with credit default swaps?
-------------

Beautiful, just beautiful.

FrogBurger said...

God, Ducky. The credit default swaps don't explain the major deficits in Europe. It's not like Europe just started having structural deficits related to unsustainable welfare programs in 2010.

Honestly can you just be a little smarter if you can't be intellectually honest?

And why do the leftists at the EU or IMG or WH keep bailing out banks if those institutions are the devil?

Ducky's here said...

I only lived I'd say 2-3 good years of great economy in my entire 38 year life so I get really touchy when people blame the wrong reason for economic troubles.

---------------------

Only 38? And you have the field of economics sussed? Amazing.

I'll give you credit though, you don't go through quite so many gyrations as z trying to avoid naming the supply side voodoo and deregulation as failures.

Ticker said...

Oh but Craig You are typical of the leftist bs artist. You fail to read or comprehend or you choose to twist what I said. I SAID the media reported the party and many of the HIGH ROLLERS who were present. The fact is they left out Peter but then you wouldn't know you don't do your homework, only try to BS your way through and twist what someone else said that is FACT.

Don't use Soros words out of contest with me or what he said years ago. I didn't fall off the damn turnip truck yesterday. I have more hours in research on Soros than you have at the breakfast table. Believe me it is not all on the internet research. The man has been "shadowed" for years and there is little that is not known about him. Most of course has not been released but when one is part of doing the research and study of the man then they "know of what they speak".
Yep, I lump the whole bunch of you in with the socialist, New World Order bunch etc. Why? Cause Craig, if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck , then most likely it's a duck. But then you would most likely deny such and call it a roster.

A socialist wouldn't have Geitner and Summers on their economic team. Horse feathers! Of course he would. Did you not read one word I said about socialist using Capitalism for their own advancement and the advancement of their agenda? Evidently not! Another example of leftist thinking or lack of I should say.
"Will be run by Plutocrats , not socialist." Well lets call it like it is, Communist. You know the guys who are socialist when it comes to other folks but they maintain their riches. Ever read about how that works Craig? Nope , didn't think so.
So stop trying to tell me it's raining when your pissing on my leg Craig. You can only try to twist and turn another's words but fortunately most here realize that and you have been called more than once.

FrogBurger said...

Only 38? And you have the field of economics sussed? Amazing.

Sorry it's taking you so long to comprehend. I guess my economics IQ is higher than yours.

See after being taught so many marxist and Keynesian theories in economics classes in one of the top French colleges, which is by the way aimed at creating the French gov statist elite, I learnt on my own the reality of business by creating one in France and freelancing.

I learnt mostly through looking at statistics and correlation. I didn't assume class warfare, exploitation of workers and all that crap.

That's your problem. That's why you're confused and I'm not.

Z said...

Ducky, 38 too young to be that smart? You're probably right.

I just heard Prof Heldman, the ultra lib who FOX has on nearly every night actually say something very close to:

"But there's inequality! People who work cleaning toilets and maybe having 2 other jobs to get by are hurting...this shows OUR SYSTEM IS NOT MERITORIOUS!"

I mean, really....It's not 'meritorious' that professionals went to school for years, are digging themselves out of debt for having paid for schooling, and are now working hard for their families so they can do BETTER than 'clean toilets and work another 2 jobs to get by'? WOW!! :-) Apparently, if you're not sweating and suffering and failing, you're JUST NOBODY IN AMERICA anymore. WHO'da thunk it? Thanks, lefties, you've REALLY screwed things up.
And that woman's teaching...and she's only ONE of these nuts. :-(

Ticker said...

"The Republicans are responsible for the deficit"

More leftist BS from Craig who has never done a day of homework other than perhaps on Daily Kos, Moveondotitdiots or some such.

From the '09 budget forward, budget deficits have increased greatly.

For the record, Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007, about the time the housing market collapse began. Thus, Democrats controlled the budgets for FY2008 and FY2009 as they did with FY2010 and FY2011.

For FY2008 Democrats compromised with President Bush on spending. However, for FY2009 Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed the Bush administration by way of continuing resolutions until Barack Obama took office.

Again, for the record, Obama was a member of the Senate majority in 2007 and 2008, and he voted for those spending bills.

The last budget deficit that Democrats "inherited" was FY 2007, the last of the Republican congressional budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and it was the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. Thus, the only deficit Obama has inherited is that which he and his Democrat majorities generated.

Perhaps Obama (and you Craig)should take a tax lesson from John Kennedy, the father of the modern Democrat party: "A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget.... As the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues. Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into balance."

Indeed, tax reductions in each of the last five administrations have resulted in tax revenue increases to the fed's coffers.

So Craig you have some more BS to try to explain FACTS? Guess you'll just pee on my leg again and try to tell me it's raining. It ain't raining Craig, just BS is getting deep from you. Oh BTW are you Ducky's brother? Quack Quack!!

FrogBurger said...

For your record Ducky, at my time, in French high school you could specialize in economics, which I did. You'd be impressed to see how much I learnt when I was just 17 about deflation, devaluation, Keynes, Adam Smith, French economics policies, Gold standard, free trade agreements. We had 6 hours a week of economics. 4 of philosophy. 6 of math. And I excelled in both those topics, which explains why I was admitted to that college.

Unfortunately I ended up in the computer field but my point is: It's not because you're an economic dummy we all have to be one.

Ticker said...

Beamish: Yep it does get better with age and you'll get smarter too.hahaha ;>) I'm 66, spent 34 years in service to my country both as civilian and in government service as well. I've loved every minute of it and continue to do so each day even with an idiot in the WH and having to read and contend with idiots such as Ducky and his "new brother".

FrogBurger said...

For your record Ducky, at my time, in French high school you could specialize in economics, which I did. You'd be impressed to see how much I learnt when I was just 17 about deflation, devaluation, Keynes, Adam Smith, French economics policies, Gold standard, free trade agreements. We had 6 hours a week of economics. 4 of philosophy. 6 of math. And I excelled in both those topics, which explains why I was admitted to that college.

So overall I have a well trained brain in logic.

My point is: It's not because you're an economic dummy we all have to be one.

FrogBurger said...

Blogger stinks right now. It posts, it doesn't, it hangs. Sorry for trying to post multiple times, Z.

Z said...

never apologize, FB..just keep posting! I do apologize for having you save your comments to make sure they're not lost if they don't print!
Please let me know every time it happens; if you don't, I don't know about it...how frustrating for you :-(

TIcker..Beamish can't get smarter..or at least I don't want to be around if he DOES !
Thanks for your service.

beamish said...

FB is two years younger than me?

I had always been under the impression that he was older than me.

I'm not gonna get any smarter, but wiser would be nice.

FrogBurger said...

I know my writing isn't perfect Beamish but that's not a sign of my being senile yet :)

Ticker said...

Beamish, down south we often times use the word smarter for the word wiser. Such as he done got a whole heap smarter in his later years.

(With age comes wisdom, that is unless you are a "progressive")

Craig said...

Thus, Democrats controlled the budgets for FY2008 and FY2009 as they did with FY2010 and FY2011.

No they didn't. Presidents, by law, submit budgets. Congress passes them and presidents sign them. Or veto them. Bush got his budgets. $3.1T for FY2008 and $3.5T for FY2009.

However, for FY2009 Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed the Bush administration by way of continuing resolutions until Barack Obama took office.

No, they didn't. Spending for 9 agencies didn't get passed and were passed in '09 in an omnibus spending bill and signed by Obama. It was $410B bill. About what Bush requested. The Dems couldn't get anything passed out of the Senate if they wanted to. Since 2006, EVERYTHING takes 60 votes.

Perhaps Obama (and you Craig)should take a tax lesson from John Kennedy

Kennedy cut the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70%. He also closed tax loopholes. That's a good lesson, 70% sound about right to you?

Indeed, tax reductions in each of the last five administrations have resulted in tax revenue increases to the fed's coffers.

Tax revenues have doubled every decade since the Great Depression due to inflation and population growth. Except the '80's. They nearly doubled only because Reagan raised payroll taxes by 25%. Bush may be negative growth. If you look at the rate of growth of real revenue per capita:

1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero

It don't look so good.

So Craig you have some more BS to try to explain FACTS?

Those were FACTS you were pulling from your arse?

Craig said...

I SAID the media reported the party and many of the HIGH ROLLERS who were present. The fact is they left out Peter but then you wouldn't know you don't do your homework, only try to BS your way through and twist what someone else said that is FACT.

I'll ask again, why is it Peter's fault it wasn't reported? He hasn't denied being there, has he? And, who were the other 'high rollers'? Inquiring minds want to know.

Believe me it is not all on the internet research. The man has been "shadowed" for years and there is little that is not known about him. Most of course has not been released but when one is part of doing the research and study of the man then they "know of what they speak".

Oooooh. Intrigue. You know what you sound like, don't you? Still, all I've seen from you is a copy of an article from smear merchant, Ed Lasky. You and a hundred other crazy ass blogs. A lot of them seem disturbed that Lewis, Soros, Bing and the Sandlers are Jews. Like in Jewish Conspiracy. Are you one of them?

It's ugly stuff, Ticker.

FrogBurger said...

Craig, tax revenues in percentage don't mean much as percentages like this, especially if you try to tie a percentage to a president e.g Bush.

If the economy is bad, tax revenues won't increase. 2000 is when the dotcom bomb started happening. That's pretty much when incomes and wages stopped increasing.

So explaining no tax revenue increase by saying it's Bush's fault is one dumb argument again.

Also tax revenue stagnation doesn't mean that taxes don't go up as well. But I'm sure you know that and things like the Laffer curve.

Honestly I'm tired of poor statistical analysis of people. And that's on both sides.

Citing stats like this doesn't prove squat. Stats need other stats to prove things.

Anonymous said...

"I'm not gonna get any smarter, but wiser would be nice."

Beamish, you will be wiser the older you get. Living and learning every day, tends to do that. If you ask me, you're already ahead of the game. (Except about baseball of course!)heh

However, in a case like Ducky's, for instance, he's stuck in the sixties, so before he becomes wiser, he first has to catch up with his chronological age.

Pris

FrogBurger said...

he first has to catch up with his chronological age.

LOL.

That's why I describe him as still being in high-school intellectually, except for movies and artistic stuff. I give him credits for his knowledge of the "seven art."

Anonymous said...

FB, exactly. You are spot on!

Pris