SectionC3

Didn’t Pope Francis demand an end to the maltreatment of the Earth, as part of God’s creation? I believe he did. Apparently we’re getting back to selective Christianity again on your part. Maybe we can talk about the prosperity Gospel next. Or opine about how if oil spills weren’t a good thing God would stop them. You and I practice different versions of Christianity, that is for sure.

Good work, Gary! I’m not one to play the treason card, but if you think Trump is treasonous and traitorous I probably wouldn’t argue too hard with you. Well done.

Maybe next time Dan Bognino plays lawyer he can explain why Mike Flynn pleaded guilty. Perhaps Dan can also shed light on the criminality and corruption that seems to follow Trump and his pals around. Steve Bannon, Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort. Michael Cohen, Rick Gates, the venerable Roger Stone, and even local thief and COVID-19 fearmongerer Chris Collins. Lots of dudes with fleas lying around that dog.

Well played! Unfortunately (or fortunately, maybe, I don’t know), no. But I am the subject of a sad tragicomedy in which transactional, traitorous Trump tramples the constitution.

What’s better - talking to investigators and nipping an investigation in the bud when you’ve done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, or stonewalling and letting it fester? Common sense said that if the kid did nothing wrong and has nothing to answer for he walks in, answers whatever question is asked, and gets the thing over with. There’s no such thing as a perjury trap when one hasn’t done anything wrong. Instead, here, the kid is clamming up, which, as an investigator would only set off alarm bells and tell me it’s time to dig deeper and find out what he might or might not have to say.

He clammed up in a civil matter so he wouldn’t have to deal with whether he could plead the fifth in that case. It’s a bad look. It’s not something a jury can hold against him, but it does ring alarm bells for people investigating the matter. Nothing to hide means no reason to hide. FYI, this isn’t about waiving his right to counsel - of course he’s a dope if he gives up counsel. This is about talking to investigators with or without counsel.

Mar-a-Moscow is going to be awesome.

Maybe they can bunk at Otis if they both end up doing federal time. They could relive the glory days and complain about Obama all the time!

Tremendous Traitor Trump Tricks Trailer Trash. Alliteration is pretty cool sometimes.

Hmmmm. Whataboutism. Nice. Still, looks like Rico’s in a little legal jeopardy, eh? It’s interesting and surely completely coincidental that the people closest to the President keep on breaking the law.

I’m with you. I just don’t see the need for Yeldon, particularly when retaining that insurance policy could cost us a promising young player we might otherwise be able to stash for a year (e.g., Sweeney, Darryl Johnson, Hodgins).

I think they’re going to keep 9. Feliciano has to make the final 53 to get on IR-eligible to return, right? If that’s the case, and if they think Feliciano can make it back this year, then we might see 10 (incl. Feliciano) stay on cutdown day, with Feliciano to IR the next day. I kind of wonder if Bates, Winters, and Boehm/Boettger will round out that group of 9. We could always release a veteran likely to return and go light in a given position group for a day (e.g., T.J. Yeldon, or Croom if they IR/stash Sweeney and go 3 TE to start the year). As an aside, why Yeldon is a lock to make this team is beyond me. I guess it’s only because the Bills like to have a vet in each position group. I agree with you in theory. The idea is that a healthy team with a deeper roster would have an advantage over a banged-up team in your scenario.

Looks like Rico clammed up today. Which is within his right. But which also looks really, really bad. Almost like he has something to hide . . .

Hmmm. Not really funny. I didn’t even chuckle. Or smirk. That’s just bad humor.

Witty. So is “The Left” on your Hate Week agenda? And our washed up psycho has made an appearance! Great news! What is it that he/she will hate this week?

Good point, Clark. Her district doesn’t touch Manhattan. Well done. But she’s still “just” a Congresswoman in no position to be subservient to Putin. Unlike your boy Trump.

Hmmmm. Who hates those things? Care to share? Got any examples? Hoax. Trump and Epstein are pals.

Also, FYI, AOC is a Congresswoman from Manhattan, so she won’t be “going against Xi and/or Putin.” For the record, I’d also like Trump to take a position “against” Putin. You’re apparently cool with him cowering before a marginally first-world dictator. That’s pretty sad, but if that’s the position you want to take, there’s apparently nothing that I can do to convince you otherwise. Sad!

Solid. That’s the hate we’re looking for here. I detect a hate of at least literacy, patience, and Colin Kaepernick here. Nicely done. Hoax. I’m not a divider. I’m a uniter. I note that you’re the one who started levying insults here. That doesn’t seem very unifying to me. Perhaps there’s some bubbling hate in there that needs to come out.

I’m starting to sense a little hate percolating here. If you can verbalize it, we can add it to the hate week menu. Please share when you’re feeling a little better and you are able!

Hoax.

So many hoaxes, so little time. Also, where do you stand on Hate Week? Anything that you would like to hate on this week, outside of your usual menu?

Ohhh. I get it now. I figured it was more shame and self-loathing on your end. Silly me. Well then, hoax.

I’m not following. Got anything more specific? Also, I think you’re missing a clause in the last “sentence.” I’m sure, as the intellectual standard bearer of the alt-wrong, that you would have picked up on that!

Jared’s pals made out ok. Manufacturing workers, not so much. But they should be grateful for what they have, right?? Hoax. I don’t hate any of those things. But let’s keep our eyes on the prize this week - what would you like to see hated during Hate Week? Sorry to hear that. Let us know when you feel better.