leh-nerd skin-erd

My son died in Iraq. It’s near Delaware. -Joe Biden

Chi is like everyone else—he has blind spots, sacred cows and bias that gets in the way of rational thought. He’s an interesting poster though, I enjoy reading his thoughts. *Edit for clarity—Biden is toast, just about mentally shot, and losing track of key dates, events and tragic losses is not uncommon in elderly people. It’s obvious he knows his son has died, but on any given day can’t summon the rest of the details. Suggesting otherwise is just silly.

“One man’s high horse is another man’s Pygmy goat.” -Ancient Proverb

Just pathetic….slurring words…speaking gibberish…and making a mistake on where the war is being waged because….he can’t keep straight where his son died.

Have a drink, take it easy, and reflect a bit on who you want to be in the world. It certainly can be this, but you can do better than this absurd douchebagery you’re running with. I’m sending prayers your way from the high road that you’re not certain I claimed I may or may not be on, sometimes. ::insert praying hands here::

I think Pelosi was attacked in his home by a guy who is nutty. I can’t explain security or lack thereof, why he didn’t hear the door being broken in, or anything else. It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other. However, if it was a spat as you imagined above, I would certainly hope that teh police would charge the guy with attempted murder and every other thing possible under the law. Why? The hammer, the head. Btw, I think, generally, the average citizen would benefit tremendously from the kind of deference shown to the Pelosi family when it comes to the criminal affidavit shared earlier.

RB Spam though, that’s the gold standard of Spam today.

Yikes, this guy is off-the-charts crazy. It will be interesting to see how questions on his mental health are addressed moving forward.

Of course not, but his point was never really about some as yet explained conspiracy theory. He was being an @sshole, and to his credit, he’s pretty accomplished at it.

Me: The first time you post something honest will be the first time you’ve posted honestly. Also me: You’re a strange person.

I can see analyzing the footage, frame by frame and looking into gross negligence if the Secret Service was involved, but even then, releasing it publicly doesn’t make an awful lot of sense. If there was a security breach, no need to provide a “how to”. If it’s a private matter, then it should be released only insofar as that is standard operating procedure for the department involved. In the Tucker Carlson thread, someone posted that TC argued it was important as a matter of significant public interest. I sorta understand that, but I don’t really see the point here.

So…my question here would be “Why?”. I’m not certain what the video/surveillance would serve. Is there an assumption that Paul Pelosi committed a crime? Or maybe that the family has made false statements to the police?

This is your third attempt at a do-over. What’s that all about? Pick a lane for goodness sake. I’ll ask again…addressing all three of your evolving allegations.. #1. What was the conspiracy you accused me of? You haven’t said. #2. What was the conspiracy I waltzed to, the one @B-man brought up, but not the one from #1 that you think I was promoting? #3. What’s my predisposition and what story do you think I wanted? You didn’t say. If I read or heard something incorrectly as you now (newly) imply, how does that square with #1 and #2 and spreading either conspiracy? Elaborate please, on the conspiracy, or any of the claims you have made. Great question: I feel when people throw out “straw man”, “whataboutism”, and “conspiracy”, it often means those people are insecure in their beliefs, lack the ability to deliver a cohesive message, and are often poor communicators. I’m not at all surprised to you trot tall three out here. Four posts tapped the energy reserve? You should hit the gym, son. Are you not sure who you’re communicating with? Maybe you’re upset at a whole ‘nother poster. Me, sometimes I mock. I mocked your (first) conspiracy theory because it was completely unnecessary. It was also ill-conceived, lacked any details and was pretty dopey. I mocked the second conspiracy theory for the same reasons I mocked you first theory, plus you changed your story, and that was pretty weak and doubly-dopey. You’ve gotten worse as time has gone on. Have a good night.

Sounds reasonable enough. The most simple explanation typically is the correct one. On that note, would you consider dem leaders spreading information about this being a R, or MAGA, call to violence "conspiracy" theorists? Also, on this note, this is the way many people feel about the attempt to tie DJT to the 1/6 riots by them congressional committee under the guise of being some sort of seeker of justice and truth. It's just silly.

As a grown up, I recognize duplicity and sh*t stirring. I responded to the information provided by the police officer speaking about the incident--nothing more, nothing less. I claimed nothing, suggested nothing, and declared nothing beyond the unusual fact pattern shared by that officer. I would have been happy to discuss the phrasing used by the police spokesperson to describe the interaction, but that wasn't in the cards. I'm still uncertain if you believe I was conspiring with the spokesperson to flood the internet with stories about the hammers 'n underwear to bring down the Speaker of the House. If so, I can't help you. Next time, if your feelings are squishy because of how I responded to your dopey conspiracy comment (the first one, before you changed it), next time consider starting the conversation in a different manner, maybe like a grown up would. Also, try not to take things personally.

I think the reference to 'a friend', if it played out like that, could be as simple as Pelosi trying to be calm and control a very dangerous situation. In the aftermath of 9/11, Rudy Giuliani said his father taught him to be the calmest guy in the room during a crisis. That's great advice.

I heard a lot of them pay people to sit in their own urine, and a second person to sit behind them and smell it. I’m playing the Powerball tonight. Stay tuned.

First, it’s completely inappropriate to tell people how they should communicate with others. It stifles dialogue and is quite offputting. Second, he didn’t say that. He changed the arc of his accusation when I asked him to explain. That’s weak and shallow. Third—and I’m not certain how SunnyD feels about this as he doesn’t seem to want to explain, but if the “conspiracy” is that the attacker isn’t a “Maga nut”, that’s about the most non-eventful and pedestrian conspiracy theory ever launched. Here’s the dialogue: Person 1: He’s crazy but not Maga. Person 2: Yeah he is. Person 1: I don’t think so. Person 2: Oh yeah. Person 1. Oh, ok I disagree. Person 2: Cool. Fourth, I could be wrong, but feel like SunnyD mentioned he thought the attacker was nutso and suggested politics be kept out of it. Fifth, I gave three alternatives to SunnyD’s issues and you’re hyper fixated on one. Open your mind. Sixth: In this grand conspiracy you have elaborated upon, is the police spokesman in on it?

I’ll hazard a guess on your behalf based on our brief interaction. First, a quick recap: The police spokesman in the link provided said that both men were holding hammers, and that they arrived, one man began bashing the other guy with a hammer; I thought the fact pattern as reported by the police spokesman was odd, not because it involved any particular person, but because it seemed unusual that a guy would break into a house with a hammer, or break in and find a hammer, and that the homeowner would awaken and or be awake and have a hammer as well. So, I said it was odd as reported by the police spokesman in the clip I watched. Turns out I was correct, it would seem; You jumped in with an allegation that I was promoting a conspiracy theory, you cited Fox News as your source, and in an effort to understand, I asked you to clarify your comment; You decided to ignore my request for clarity and vigorous dialogue, instead repeating your unsubstantiated declaration but changing your comment to suggest I was waltzing to yet another conspiracy put forth by B-man; So, on the whole, I think there are a few explanations as to why you’re left to wonder about things. You could be a kid goofing around, and if so, you got me! You could be an adult goofing around and if so, you’re probably a bit of a loser. Finally, I think you’re probably a closed-minded and emotional thinker, prone to jumping to conclusions and spinning stories that ultimately don’t materialize, and insecure to the point that when you make a silly declaration, get called on it, you lack the ability to simply say “I got ahead of things there, my bad.”. Anyway, let’s move on and recognize that Mr. Pelosi suffered a gruesome injury and a horrible attack, that the attacker should be institutionalized and kept from hurting anyone else.

The danger is we can’t trust republicans implicitly either. I don’t want another dog and pony show, and these politicians seem to run an awful lot of quid pro quo. Power corrupts, that’s a fact.

You will refer to that as opposition research in approximately 4.8 years. I think regardless of political affiliation and whether or not Twitter-Musk will be the end of the world, this is funny as *&$#.

It’s amazing to me how the origins of a virus responsible for untold suffering and death, and that decimated the world economy does not get center-stage treatment similar to the 1/6 hearings. We’re a compliant and acquiescent group, the American people. Btw, when Trump suggested it would disappear, I think this is what he meant.

You’re missing the point imo. Your characterization of fringe element nutjobs is fair, though I see it as less of a horseshoe and more of a closed loop. I see very little difference between an anarchist of the left looking to disrupt/destroy/tear down than I do someone on the right doing the same. They are the same people. The important issue is how these people are leveraged for political gain. On a very local level, @Sundancer creating a narrative that people are creating or fomenting conspiracies when discussing the odd fact pattern initially offered in reporting last night. Now, while he was way ahead of himself on that issue—and apparently was completely comfortable with the narrative you offered about Pelosi meeting/knowing/seeing his attacker around town—it’s entirely possible he was concerned that my post may have reached and influenced my ones of followers and the 5-13 regular posters here. Or, it’s possible he was seeking some version of moral high ground populated by the perpetually unimaginative. On a much larger and more important scale, look at the response. Biden tying this attack by this obviously deranged individual to Republican voters is repugnant. There are crazies all over the place, people being pushed into oncoming trains, people sucker punching others, and a nightly dose of Dateline NBC reveals some horrendous stuff goes on in the world. It is deliberate, intentional and divisive with purpose. This isn’t a case of political violence regardless of whether or not this guy is found with a ticket to the next Trump rally or not. He’s not the only one, of course, but he is the latest. Why? Well, like stolen election allegations and the like, it works. Rand Paul nailed it.

What conspiracy are you implying I scripted up, Tiny Dancer? I commented on a report that suggested something other than what was reported later. I suggested that it was an odd fact pattern, which it was. The only conspiracy angle raised was by you, seeing tales that were not spun, and fables never whispered by a roaring fire.

The Muppy Puppy ‘bout to bring the pain?