leh-nerd skin-erd

I know, and I went along with him down the rabbit hole. I generally think if you can find some common ground, we can have dialogue like a couple adults and dealing with both issues. I had no idea what he was talking about initially when he brought up something about republicans wanting to make something about Saudi Arabia illegal. Next thing I knew, Tibsy was on to pardons and the wondrous evolution of Biden from oppressor to savior, the victimization of pot smokers and the societal value of opium dens. At one point I think I was staring at a tree outside my window thinking "Wow man, trees are like broccoli for giants, man.".

Biden's pardon didn't solve the issues you've just outlined on the federal level, Tibs. In that regard, he didn't evolve at all, and recognized folks like you wouldn't know the difference. It's a trend with you. As for the obvious political ploy here, you asked a question and I answered it. You are so worried about all this but sit around with your thumb up your keister until Biden tells you it;s time to rejoice. This is the opposite of evolving, Tibs. This is like watching Biden just wander about the stage, not even sure what he's supposed to be talking about, who he is supposed to be angry at, and not 100% sure where he is. I wonder if you have a Dr. Jill Tiberius in your life to help you navigate each step. If you do, you should text her, tell her she's failing you miserably, and get your money back.

I assume you're speaking about the marijuana pardon when you suggest he is "correct on this issue"? No, I don't think he's 'correct' on this issue. He did what he always seems to do--leverage the lives of human beings and their relative happiness in purely political terms. It's no surprise the announcement comes as the mid-terms approached. He's been in office nearly 2 years, and if he truly believed in the righteousness of his actions, he let victims of over-officious government twist in the wind until it made sense for him, not for them. That he was largely influential in the policies that had these people needing a presidential pardon to being with makes his actions all the more offensive. Questions remain as to whether or not he went far enough here, likely due in part to the strategic timing of this pardon. As for politicians being 'better or worse', it's hard to imagine a politician worse than Biden all things considered. He's been directly and consistently involved in legislation and policy that hurts people on a massive scale. I'd compare this action to a store owner sworn to the fight against big tobacco thinking he's doing the right by only selling the kids cigarettes with filters, or steering them to e-cigs.

You're throwing out questions on issues decided at the state level in a thread about Biden appealing for oil sanctuary status from the Saudi government? At least have the self-respect to fully form the question. Pot, generally, I don't care so much about on a personal level. On the societal level, I think the mixed messaging (legalize! decriminalized! medicinal!) has created confusion and conflict for far too many years. The average kid growing up over the past couple decades has been hearing how great it is, how impactful it can be, how it's going to be legal soon, and yet there remained issues that created problems pretty much across the board. It is interesting, though, that you chose marijuana to bolster the street cred of Joe Biden. Biden's lack of leadership on this issue---reveals incompetence at a minimum, a trend toward overt hostility and racial targeting in the worst case scenario. It's only a couple short years ago where he was against legalization and was called to the carpet by Corey Booker in a presidential debate. He's been responsible, in whole or part, for the destruction of neighborhoods and likely tens (hundreds?) of thousands of individuals as a result. Pot should be legalized, though not necessarily on the blue state model. NY has found a way to even screw this thing up. Biden and the energy crisis is 50 years in the making, and we both know it.

As always, I’m happy to answer any question posed by non-toxic posters. I don’t understand the question here. What are you referencing?

In your scenario, Biden started in the mid-1970s. Soon though. So so soon.

If you ever do, imo opinion it’s borderline impossible to leave the fries in too long.

Sometimes, with all the questions swirling as to who should have done what, who said what to whom, and against what one thinks is absolutely in their best interest, it’s just a good thing to have someone who cares enough about you to say “Sorry…no can do.”. All the people involved here and Tua didn’t have that person in his corner.

This feels wrong, and I’ll regret it later, but was this is as funny as TV gets.

50 years, Tibs, 50 years this guy has been in office, and you allow him to lead you by the nose. Now, you’re so simple as to post a link that literally shouts “JOE BIDEN CAN SEND A MESSAGE NOW!” and it goes right over your head. You buy into some cockamamie story about the some random hero democrat writing legislation to expose Republicans just before the midterms. I really can’t believe how extreme people like you are.

I don’t see this happening. For every Biden, there’s a Republican doppelgänger. These people are above the law, and where money and influence converge, they ultimately protect one another.

So…the president has the authority to act immediately…has had the authority to act immediately since Jan 2021…was VP under Obama who had the authority to send this statement for 8 years…and the Post quotes Dick Durbin (a highly influential senator since 1997) as saying “it’s time” to send the Saudis a message…and the message should come just before the midterms…because fuel prices are high during a time when the Dems have worked for exactly this type of scenario for decades? High energy prices; The push for a move to green energy; American dependence on Saudi oil; Dems control the WH, Senate and Congress; You’re allowed to question the narrative Tibs, and recognize that the Trumpian push toward American energy independence wasn’t all bad. Anyway, why wouldn’t Biden just pull the trigger?

This thread commenced in 2008, 14 years ago. W Bush was president. Some popular things in those days: Apple bottom jeans Boots with the fur with the fur9 The Blackeberry Twilight, the movie 14 years later, with nearly 10 of those years seeing democrat administrations and all of those 10 with Joe Biden being the first or second most powerful man on the planet....what has changed? The Saudis etc still seem pre-inclined to tell American presidents to %$#@ off. https://english.alarabiya.net/business/energy/2022/10/05/US-criticizes-OPEC-decision-vows-to-curb-its-control-over-energy-prices Maybe we need to elect better leaders?

There IS that, Doc. Good point.

Yes. On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being 'not a' and 10 being 'hellz yeah ya are', you're a 10.

Now how did I miss that? wny 1 l-s zed

Did you meet Tibs on the head injury floor at the Buffalo General?

Let me guess...you would rather I continue to point out your obvious, sustained hypocrisy than face the indignation of being unable to answer the simple questions I posed? What's so hard about all this for you? These are painfully simple subjects.

Ah, you have special rules when it comes to “admission”, that’s what I was referencing earlier. Biden admitted inappropriately touching multiple women (often called “groping”) and you love the guy. Same with Clinton’s, both of them. HW did not acknowledge being a “wife beater” as you have claimed, acknowledged anger issues and poor behavior and suggested he never broke a law. Besides, I never voted for him. Now, let’s see how Tibsy cares: Did you vote for WClinton, assuming you were able? Did you vote for HClinton, she of “bimbo eruption”, perpetual enablement and victim blaming fame? Did you vote for Joe Biden, acknowledged groper, perpetual plagiarizer and candidate with a history or making racially insensitive comments?

The accusations of him beating his wife are just that, accusations, in a hotly contested political race. I take nothing at face value where politics are concerned. If he had a conviction on his record for domestic assault, I would consider the facts and make a decision from there, though in your scenario, I cannot imagine voting for a convicted 'wife beater'. Then again, that's not the scenario here, is it? Lots of people have different children with different partners. It's already a thing. That would not stop me from voting for that person; Abortion is a divisive subject, and this is the sort of October surprise element I was speaking about. I support a woman's right to choose within reasonable standards for many reasons, not the least of which is I have no idea what I might have done/supported when I was much younger and had there been an unwanted pregnancy. At the same time, I think the approach to abortion by some pro-choice advocates borders on the grotesque and obscene. So, a pro-life candidate having supported an abortion at some point in the past would not preclude me from voting for a candidate. I do believe however, that if a candidate supported the causes important to you, you abandon all pretext of defending and supporting victims and vote party line.

I was certain you were just messing around on Clinton/Lewinsky, but now it seems clear you've got the classic mindset of a toxic male. Many victims of this sort of trauma 'love' their victimizer. It's one of the reasons the actions of the predator work so well. I'm just surprised to see you defend the guy so passionately. Clinton is bad, that's completely irrelevant to allegations against HW. What is relevant is that people like you are happy to look the other way and use the 'she wanted it' defense when it suits you, and pretend to be offended when it's someone else. I couldn't support Herschel Walker if I wanted to, I don't live in Georgia. If I did, I would weigh out my options, consider the relative credibility of allegations, factor in the October surprise element, and my personal viewpoint on the most important issues in the race. When all was said and done, I would also factor in the very mindset that you shared here: The standards I might apply when considering to do business with an attorney, accountant, or plumbers cannot be applied to politics. As I hold my nose and look away, folks like you will flock in large numbers to vote for people with serious ethical and moral issues, all as they pretend to champion rights these their candidate(s) tend to trample all over.

I understand your point here, but that vax issue was a very hot button deal at the time. With the approach the NFL took to it all, there was no real flying under the radar to begin with. Lots of people did care about his beliefs and had no problem sharing their feelings with him. In context, for some, he went from beloved and quirky 'great get' and fan favorite to being a pariah to some. When you add in the fact that he took it personally when some fans turned on him...it was a recipe for the type of ugliness we saw. As for division at the team level, I always figured on a percentage basis, had the vax been optional, a high percentage of players would have forgone getting it. I base that on the fact that a fair amount of these guys are under 30, high performing athletes, and have a willingness to expose their bodies to traumatic injury on a regular basis. Add in a high percentage of players come from communities the expert's suggest are typically vax hesitant...I'd think what caused a lot of players to get vaxed was the money element and pressure by the league. In the end, I was happy when we signed CB, happy he was a Bill and thought he was damn fun to watch. It's a shame it ended with (some) hard feelings, but it was a fun ride.

Holy cow, you really think ML was a "willing accomplice"?? Maybe she dressed inappropriately, Tibs, or showed too much skin? 1955 called and wants its approach to viewing workplace interactions back. She wasn't a willing accomplice, Tibs, she was an individual caught up in the very, very dark game of workplace power dynamics on the world's greatest stage. Whether or not she had a crush on the guy, whether or not she wanted to sleep with the guy, the onus was on him to not be a predator. He failed in that regard and damn near destroyed her life. Then he lied about it, exposing a 22 year old female to accusations of lying, manipulation and attempting to bring down a president. Your heroine Hillary, and your political svengali James Carville were active and willing participants of the attempt to discredit her. Your attempt to sweep it all away with the old 'she wanted it' defense is why it happened over, and over and over. The people involved are why it happened. It's like the whole #metoo and "#ibelieveher" movements were just a show for some people. Come to think of it, we already knew they were a show when you all saddled up for one of the most notorious and admitted gropers in American politics.

On the bright side, if any trouble breaks out, you can heal thyself.

Using your standard, Clinton raped a woman, assaulted several others and used the power dynamic of the highest office in the land to use an intern for a spittoon and/or humidor. All you stalwarts punished him by making his wife a senator and major presidential candidate. Hell, some folks even think she won. Why you rush to defend this creep is beyond me, but heck, it’s only been 30+ years of wrongdoing.