leh-nerd skin-erd

Leo drama. 😀

Where do you think he was from the end of the Summer of BillSy until the sudden appearance of post-election Homey? I heard he was on the lam from 5-O.

I respectfully reject your apology, and no concession is necessary. A sincere apology comes without conditions. Here is an example, and to be clear, it's a fictional account of what might be an exchange between us: "I'm sorry I made fun of your haircut, Kay. It doesn't actually make you look like a mental patient." In your example, an exchange would be more like this: "I'm sorry I made fun of your haircut, Lehn. It's incredible of course, but I find myself quite distracted and unable to concentrate, so please consider wearing a hat." See the difference there? It's the old "Hat and the Haircut" paradigm, Kay. Let's just move forward, and I promise to consider the information shared in your posts for the nugget or two that might compel me to reconsider my view on the world.

The multiple evolving identities guy went with “Let’s be honest”. The commitment to pathological arrogance is impressive!

I can’t get past the fact that if condescension were intelligence as you have reimagined, it would be spelled differently. Or…would it? 🤫

I already told you what I think, and can’t think of any way to make it easier for you to understand. I feel like you’re going backwards here, Benjamin Button.

You’re very predictable regardless of your evolving screen names. You started the assumption game, lazy lad, and of course take issue when it’s returned upon you. Delightful. But on the bright side, we agree. Me, earlier today: You loved the outcome of the EJ Carroll civil case, but suddenly don’t like the outcome of the Babbitt civil case. You, now: No, that’s not it at all. I actually liked the outcome of the EJ Carroll civil case, I just don’t like the outcome of the Babbitt civil case. 🤦🏼‍♂️ One main difference of course—the Carroll case went to a jury, with the defendant willing to fight to the end. The DOJ case involves an acknowledgment a very high probability of an adverse outcome.

I don't know much about him, but saw that some people fire bombed his house. That'll rile you up a bit.

If the best she had to offer after a first encounter is a diatribe on all the reasons they think your politics suck, a bullet was most definitely dodged by @SCBills. I think the common refrain should be..ah, f it. Attractive is great, attractive can be fun but what a bore she likely is. I’m in the “just be you, but be a god version” of you camp. Put in the effort, respect the other person and see where it goes. You may not get as lucky as @The Frankish Reich, who, reading between the lines scored a threesome with ex and future wives, but you’ll be honest. @teef good to see you here and great post.

Muppalito, please have a private convo with das Comrade about opinions and this big beautiful world we all inhabit. I do my level best to get along but sometimes she goes full-on Mike Tyson on me and while I may be a big fat fatso as she says, I have feelings, you know? To quote Harry Chapin: There are so many colors in the rainbow, So many colors in the morning sun So many colors in a flower And I see every one. I'm just trying to be the best, most colorful flower I can be. Maybe you gals can have a convo on your way to the rest room at the next PPP summer pick a nick? I think you will be a good influence on her.

It pretty clearly says “multiple sources” Frank. In this history of our country, a legacy media source has never been wrong when there were multiple sources reporting. One sources? Yeah, it’s probably like 50/50. More than one? Book it, Danno. Plus, this is an EYEWITNESS news station, and eye witnesses actually see things with their eyes. Where did you go law school? Jeesh.

I think the first time you worried about law enforcement officials being in danger, or assaulted and beaten was when there was a political reason to do so. I think your posting history reveals, in fact, that you support an assault on a police officer so long as certain conditions are present. I supported the police officer who shot Ashli Babbit, you moron. I tried to put myself in his shoes, understand on whatever level the type of emotion, fear and adrenaline he was feeling as some lunatics were smashing through a glass barrier in attempt to gain access to a restricted area with officers on the other side with guns drawn. My general rule of thumb is as follows: 1. The officer’s job is to go home at night; 2. The officer has no idea the intent of the other party, or what weapons they may/may not have; 3. Facts leading up to the incident influence the outcome; 4. It’s extremely unlikely, and very rare, for an officer to want to shoot anyone in the chest and end their life; Still, you fools crowed about the outcome of civil cases like E Jane Carroll, completely oblivious to the things that impact the outcome of civil suits. Now, you don’t like the outcome. Venue matters. Emotion matters. What’s reasonable behavior is judged looking backwards and considering outcome. The relative likelihood of a positive or negative outcome is considered. When all is said and done, an unarmed female was dispatched without a warning shot fired, and during a time when multiple political figures talking about how things like warning shots, restraint and leg shots should be the default. The officer has at least one incident of reckless behavior in leaving a loaded firearm in a bathroom, and it’s impossible to know what else may be in his personnel record. My assumption is that the concern was political sentiment would influence the outcome, and whatever they decided to pay resulted in a preferable outcome to taking a chance pursuing that a jury might return an award of $0, or $100,000,000. Autopsy photos/report of a 30-something year old female dead on a table alone could swing people toward an award, rationalizing that the shooting was not criminal but perhaps excessive force was used. Beyond that, it’s just the way things go.

Absolutely not, and spoiler alert: incoming whataboutism! Read at you own risk! I do not think he reviewed each case, and will state definitive that it’s very rare for a President to review the case associate with pardons in any great detail. I think there are political pardons, favors for friends and favors of friends of friends. I think that’s the way it works, just about always, so it seems silly to spend much time debating that point. For that matter, I have not reviewed each and every case, or any and all cases. I review the review on an iPad and try to apply my sense of fairness to what I know. There were crimes committed on 1/6, and to summarize my thoughts (shared somewhere in this forum on 1/6) was that the people who broke the law on that day did not represent my views, and you would not catch me anywhere near that type of event. Joe Biden was elected president, he became my president after the election, and I was ready to move on. However, there is a gaping chasm between some of these knuckleheads that assaulted law enforcement and created chaos and a person trespassing in whatever form the DOJ chose to prosecute. Here’s a summary of why I think fair minded people can reject the notion that every prosecution and very outcome was fair, reasonable and free from political animus: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/28/politics/supreme-court-limits-obstruction-charges-against-january-6-rioters/index.html To be blunt, I think I’m in the mainstream here. Many prosecutions were fine and suitably harsh, those individuals should not have been pardoned by President Trump. Some were overzealous prosecutions politically motivated, and politically motivated resolution seems to be the most likely outcome.

All this because you gushed over Jesus in a Bernie t-shirt, and I suggested He would go a different route? I’m pretty stunned I received any pushback at all…mostly because the subject was about Jesus, wearing a t-shirt. That’s the stuff of your Teen People or Seventeen tabloids, Kay, whimsical but unserious. I’m not against all that by the way, it’s just hard for me to relate to that particular subject and focus on it for any length of time. On commentary of my physical state, no, Kay, I would not think an apology is in order. You said what you think, you think what you said, and you meant what you mean. I cannot control what you say, I can only control how I process it. I think, but certainly don’t know, that maybe somewhere in your emotional development you received positive immediate reinforcement for the type of behavior you occasionally exhibit here. Or, maybe you believe with all your precious precociousness what you said, and bless your heart for that. Either way, I have my own issues, so yours are whatevs. I feel like I’ve extended compliments your way, and acknowledged that some of your posts provided fuel for thought. In case I kept those fat-headed thoughts in my fat head, I think you’re probably pretty intelligent, do an excellent job of outlining your thoughts, sticking to your values and I can respect all of that without agreeing with you. You also used a word the other day that I was unfamiliar with, and I like it. On your manifesto subs 2.0+, I’m sorry you feel that way. You should work through it, emotionally and intellectually, because one fat, smelly carnivore shouldn’t have you writing a thesis on how you are interacted with. It’s unhealthy. What…happened to us, Kay?

I was all for the prosecution of J6 perpetrators, however, there were more than a few stories of prosecutorial overreach. The Dems pressed the advantage they had, looking to make a statement by hunting down everyone they possibly could find. I think most reasonable Americans look at the way liberals generally approach crime (soft on perps, hard on LEOs), say the way low level offenders were tracked down and rejected the approach. Put another way, I think most people that are victims of crime would appreciate the time/effort/commitment the Biden DOJ spent on tracking down and overcharging low level offenders, but realize the hypocrisy in play. I think it mattered in November, and mattered beyond people who identify as MAGA voters. So, pardons were appropriate for some, not for more violent offenders.

Always appreciate your input, but Homey’s ignorance is as believable now as it was when he was posting as BillStime. He’s completely immersed in silliness.

Saw it a month or two back…I thought it well done, but it dragged a bit at times. I have no real idea what adolescents are facing today, but I’d think it generally goes a relatively small percentage are dealing with fringe issues, a relatively small percentage are clicking along nicely, and the majority are just trying to figure it all out as they go along. I agree with you on the 80/20 rule. I googled whatever it was that the kids scrawled on the dad’s van, but beyond that, the story was laid out pretty well.

@The Frankish Reich and the other usual suspects are saying this book will be number one with a bullet in the new Fiction category!

It always comes down to the same thing: a sensible mix of professionalism, regulation and personal accountability make sense. Like most other professions, a good/great doctor is a gift if you're lucky enough to have one. However, to pretend that the medical profession is not, on occasion, part of the problem with health care in this country is silly.

And in the process, upsetting his neighbors to the right, left, up and down in his container living suite in a large, undisclosed yet completely-walkable-everything-you-need-within-15-minutes city. I would suggest he take a deep breath, hop in the car and drive in the country for a bit. Alas, he likely sold his vehicle when he moved in. Related news--this is why Roundy-style living isn't for everyone.

Apologies for the late reply. I had a doctor's appointment today, showing up about 20 minutes before the scheduled time, respectful of the doctor's time and deftly avoiding the exorbitant fee charged by the physician for a late arrival or missed appointment. Banks would probably be thrilled with that type of return. Ironically, the doctor and his team were running quite late, so I burned through that 20 minutes, plus another 22 minutes, plus the added 15 between nurse/chart/update and arrival of said physician. The opportunity cost to me was substantial, but I'm certainly grateful that they didn't make it awkward with apologies for the time lost due to their delays. Then, off to the appointment scheduler. We had a good laugh over whether or not my follow up appointment was truly 1pm, or if 1:22pm was a better time for me to arrive. It was pretty funny, the scheduler just sort of smiled and rolled her eyes because as she said "...that's just how it goes around here." After that, I had the opportunity to visit with the billing team, inquiring as to why the charge for a prior visit was billed at 2.5x the fee previously agreed to with my health care provider, only to find that the practice had accepted payment at the previously agreed upon figure. My main concerns--was there an error in billing? A misunderstanding? A deliberate attempt to collect more than previously agreed upon? As it turned out, that's just how they do it. While I was walking out, I overheard the office manager speaking with a patient about an overdue balance, advising the patient that if a bill was not paid in full, it would be referred for follow up to a collection agency. She was pretty animated, obviously frustrated that the customer was unable or unwilling to pay. Anyway, banks. Yeah, what's with that?

I’m not certain that this thread exceeds the tedium of your posts. Sometimes, you carry the day quite effectively. My body, my diet, my right to choose. I don’t judge your hypocrisy for advocating the wholesale slaughter of plants in search of the perfect tofu chicken sammy or your flirtation and infatuation with certain climate-destructive goods and services—-oh, wait, I do. You know better, in fact, you’ll probably be telling me you know better, and you’ll offer self-congratulatory accolades that you know better, better. You’re Trumpian in that regard. It wouldn’t take much to move me towards being a vegetarian and feasting in the corpses of certain preferred organisms instead. It’s not so much the ethical part, it’s that if I spend too long contemplating how things get from there to here, I get a little woozy. Still, enjoy that which you consume. That’s what’s really cool.

I love the idea where a bank partners with a community to educate customers about the banking system, credit management, responsible borrowing and balancing a checkbook. Many do. I love the idea of reasonable fees for services, because just as in every walk of life, the relationship between cost and value matters. I draw the line at the hyper-victimization mentality where people become enraged because a fee is charged because they tried to spend money they didn’t have, and use phrases like “blood money” to address what is often an issue of personal responsibility. We live in a time where information necessary to navigate this complex relationship between available balance and desire for goods and services is at one’s fingertips. My relationship with banks, credit cards and money has taken twists and turns like many relationships do. Thankfully my role models focused on the personal responsibility aspect as opposed to the darker version you that you favor. My default would be: Allow the financial institution to asses cost/impact to their operations; Allow the financial institution to charge a reasonable fee based on said cost; Reasonable regulation balancing consumer/organizational needs makes sense; If a bank chooses to waive fees en masse, to encourage client relationships and/or loyalty, great; A $500 fee in your example seems excessive to me, but the government regulation you posted about limited the fee to $5. If a bank incurs, say $10 or $20 in cost, it makes sense to me that they should be able to recoup it.

That’s pretty nasty indeed, but I’m not reading anywhere that the change deals with payday loans, loans near military bases or Lord of the Dance tickets purchased on Ticketmaster. Bloomberg indicates the two issues that Homey was concerned about: $5 cap on overdraft fees from banks, where you spend node than you have; Firms offering digital payment service; https://news.bloomberglaw.com/banking-law/trump-signs-repeals-of-cfpb-overdraft-digital-payment-rules

Yes, I’ve bought tickets on Ticketmaster. I’m uncertain what you mean by unannounced fees. No, I’ve never taken a payday loan. (Were you a doctor for La Cosa