leh-nerd skin-erd

These are the types of politicians I referred to in my post above. Hakeem Jeffries, Nancy Pelosi, election deniers 2016. Pelosi was in charge when Schiff made comments about evidence in his possession tying DJT directly to Putin, evidence never produced nor heard about again post-Mueller. Second issue, McCarthy made statements in 2022 that he was going to release footage if he became Speaker. Pelosi spokesperson doesn’t suggest McCarthy is legally prohibited from sharing access, instead that a “serious question” is in play. These are political weasel words designed to rile up the base. The only serious question is whether or not the law limits release, and if it did, surely there would have been action to prevent it. The Dems seem very opposed to transparency, which seems odd given their general position in law enforcement and dealing with the public.

Frenx, I don’t know what national security secrets would be exposed by the release of the tapes, but it seems like you’re advocating for a wide scale release. Give the tapes to PBS, AP etc and others? Politics makes strange bedfellows. This is not new. Meanwhile, it’s interesting that prior to the release, the control of the surveillance was exclusively limited to political parties/appointees with a long and rich history of deceiving/misleading the people. From selective leaks to selected outlets, misleading statements and innuendo to outright manipulation, release seems to be the best option even though it’s not you preferred source.

Lots of folks want transparency's as long as it’s controlled by their guys. Same old story.

Why would I be offended? I asked for your opinion.

I guess I understand this concern to a point, but I’m not certain that listening to a prosecutor from a DOJ case is the best source of objective information. The decision to withhold footage may well have been part of a strategy to win a case where the withheld footage might have shaded or added context to the matter. Additionally, if these cameras were designed to help prevent the events of a 1/6, the “cat” referenced sounds like an awful lot like Garfield. It seems illogical that the people responsible for security haven’t drastically overhauled the system to stay one step ahead of where it was at back then. If there are legitimate security concerns, they should be dealt with. I’m all for that but for now, I’m not really seeing how this is catastrophic.

The game has to be played by the rules established, and Washington leaks like a sieve. What are you concerned about?

Pretty soon, this will probably be illegal too.

Not for the monkeys, that’s why I had to make amends.

I said earlier that dealing with you is like playing Words with Monkeys. I apologize to the monkeys.

This is the second evolution of your original statement which read, profoundly: ********** Violently what? Please - elaborate “broken”’ one - source *********** 🤔🤡 BillSy says, and I quote: Please - elaborate - jenga, spelunking- source

I don’t think I’m an outlier on the whole “words” thing, but I suppose anything is possible. You started with this: Violently what? Please - elaborate “broken”’ one - source I politely clarified and asked for clarity from you. You proceeded to use phrases like “word porn”, “empty suit”, “f’n idiot” and claimed I was “full of schitt”, like you’re off rage-suppressing medication. Eventually though, with persistence and patience, I was able to empower you to provide clarity, and coax this out of you: You said VIOLENT ASSAULT What does that mean to you? Why all the hubbub and frostiness when you had to rework your thought process to undue the gibberish? Say what you mean, mean what you say. Here’s a link from CNN describing the events alleged to have occurred, which would constitute a violent assault to me: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/05/02/politics/tara-reade-allegation-joe-biden/index.html I think this is what Kamala was talking about when she said she believed his accusers. I think, too, that when Joe groped the women he ended up apologizing to, it would be up to each victim to say whether there was a violent “sexual assault” or simply that an assault occurred. You get into issues over forcible touching, the power dynamic etc. How would you characterize the allegations against Biden?

You’re going full Deprade these days. Stay out of the Home Depot brah. I’ll let the current VP address this. Is it really a stretch that a guy who fondled women professionally would have these issues? https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/437107-harris-i-believe-biden-accusers/ https://news.yahoo.com/sen-kamala-harris-says-believe-181901449.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJh4iQ2sLLQ0cVv0IN4RamsbcpOL1E7BTa6B8BFkhE_wb0T5TvAogSg9KQnSpDofPDavnp_-82GKCztZR3-9OZ5SXEixrEiFXeUqQw26uuIu_KloX9bEzvbiMWUBCbaEodPnBUn66-0B0scSstmtcm2EsEZLCpcEeJBWL1SrlBeL https://nypost.com/2020/08/12/kamala-harris-believed-joe-bidens-accusers-until-she-didnt/

I hope one day the history books are rewritten so that our ancestors were clothed in strictly vegan outerwear. I’m not saying put them in wicking fabrics or Nikes, that’s a bridge too far, but those animal pelts were savage.

Ok, I see now that “source” is critical to my understanding here. Thank you. Please elaborate, broken one. Source! Please. Elaborate, broken. One source? Please elaborate, broken. One, source. Any way I try and rework these words it comes back gibberish. It’s like playing Words with Monkeys. If you remember what you actually meant, let me know. In the meantime, 👨🏻‍🦯.

Thanks, that was supposed to say “violently assaulting a woman”. I appreciate you pointing that out. “Please - elaborate “broken” one - source”….reads like a climactic scene in a Jason Bourne movie, but I don’t understand what it means here. Can you please elaborate?

Being a saint has nothing to do with it, but I did enjoy the chuckle and the CNN crawl about ::gasp:: vulgar comments. Biden was off groping women, is credibly accused of violent assaulting another, and Hillary is perhaps the greatest enabler of sexual predation in American politics. That’s what these people do. Fact is, vulgarity isn’t a crime, Trump’s womanizing ways have been well-established for decades and if Melania is cool with it, what’s the problem for you? It seems like it broke you.

My goodness dude, you’re a Neanderthal. Powerful men uses connections, innuendo and the threat of destruction to silence a victim. This is nothing new, and backwards thinking folk like you are complicit.

I didn’t realize you were holding back…🤣

That’s your standard? Why didn’t E J Crazy pursue criminal charges against DJT when the incident allegedly occurred? Here’s the fact— Biden has admitted inappropriately touching women, and his VP has stated she believes Tara Reid was sexually assaulted by Joe Biden. What that lead to was millions of people voting for him to be President, that is to say, people like you…and Frenx….and others made him the most powerful person in the world in essence saying certain women don’t matter. Trump has been the exception to the rule on govt tyranny—defending himself with a big FU with bogus claims of being a Russian plant, and being the target of political persecution. Most people would have cracked by now, and I’d think TR recognized her best course of action is to lay low and let this old man continue on his path to cognitive decline. It’s a story as old as time, really. Powerful people get away with things like this. Hell, Kamala sold out to be his VP, what chance would Tara Reade have?

Well, the compassion switch didn’t trip after he was down, perhaps overridden by the steady surge of adrenaline going through her system. She went from being worried about her own life to shooting him to wandering around apparently replaying it in her mind over and over. Seems like she was in shock tbh.

That was after you reimagined what I wrote, in response to my question seeking clarity, or words to that effect. ✌🏻

Which ones…the tax version or the part where you reimagined what I actually wrote?

Thank you, I thought you might be referring to these comments, but since you said “…to that effect” it pays to seek clarity. I believe you’re misinterpreting what I said. “Following the narrative…” was an important part of what I wrote, and I didn’t suggest anything about what people might/might not miss. If you’re earning $750k per year and in the highest tax bracket, contributing an extra 13-20% of your income may not impact your lifestyle, depending of course on your lifestyle. The same argument can be viewed at any income level when we’re speaking about the emotional appeal of ‘doing more’. Whether you would miss it is a separate issue altogether and best viewed through the prism of time. People who support the fair share argument can always do more, at least to the point that they have paid 100% of their income in tax.

Hmm. “…something to that effect” covers a lot of ground, some/much of it subjective. Can you be more clear?

You could be right—one got laughed out of a political bid for the WH for creative storytelling, on something demonstrably false, easily refutable and at that stage of his career completely unnecessary. To his credit though, it really seemed that he wanted those particular lies to be true. At some point, you have to appreciate his dedication to making things up.