leh-nerd skin-erd

That occurred to me, and thought, but was not sure that 6er was an accuser of sorts.

In fairness he claims to be a ghost, not an impersonator. I don't know about that, I'm not even sure ghosts exist. All you can do is control you, and always remember, there is a U in there. Well, there is a not a U in "there", but in the word "you", there is definitely a U in it. Damn it!

You can say all the bad things you want about Republicans as far as I'm concerned. It defies logic that the border crisis--with bodies and victims too many to count on both sides of the border--remains basically unchanged for the last 50 years. That's on every R and D that lacked the courage--or just as likely benefitted politically or financially--to try and solve this problem. As for Abbott, I think it can be political maneuvering and strategic planning for Texas all at once. It's exceptionally easy to sit back and posture on the greater good from NY or DC when not dealing with the underlying problem. Perhaps by dealing first hand with the crisis on a much, much smaller scale than a border state, some additional understanding might result and serious people sit down to figure it out. I'm all for engagement and solutions to the crisis, but it seems very few politicians are willing to do that.

You don't even cover fabric cost at $3. The man was an XXXL!

Take me to the magic of the moment On a glory night Where the children of tomorrow dream away In the wind of change Walking down the street Distant memories Are buried in the past, forever I follow the Moskva Down to Gorky Park Listening to the wind of change

Oh, a book has been written. Let’s not even question the Jimmy Cagney-esque quote attributed to “the Justice Department” about Trump’s “lawyer and fixer”. Everyone is a “Ray Donovan” fan these days. Three predictions: It will contain unsubstantiated allegations portraying the author as the hero, the only parties acting politically as anyone not the author, and accusations of outrageous behavior; The media will provide breathless coverage and use terms like “bombshell” for 3-7 days, pimp the heck out of it, and that will be that; People absolutely and unconditionally supportive of the current administration, who see nothing undertaken by them as political will see no irony in criticizing others concerned about the obvious political implications of actions undertaken by the current admin. Seems everyone is distrustful of the government when their guy ain’t running it.

When considering the totality of posts and opinions he has offered here, think of a tape measure. One side, we'll call it the smart end, informs, the other offers very little and is just along for the ride. Sadly, in this case, Joe represents the smart end.

That wasn't in the description that he copied/pasted from the wiki. He also left out "... and strong regimentation of society and the economy.", possibly because that would lead to questions on his support of a strong regimentation of society and the economy based on his personal ideology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Many years ago, I decided to stop fretting about who was drafted, where they went, and whether or not it made sense based on the need at the time. I read reports, follow to an point but beyond that I just like to enjoy draft day. In that regard, I was very happy with the JA pick, and had no preference other than I thought Rosen really had the potential to be abrasive and perhaps lacked critical leadership skills (admittedly based on very limited information). So, I was happy they took him, spent no time worrying about draft order and what they gave up to get him, the knocks on him and settled in for the show. What a show! The very cool part of the JA years for me has been the return of fun to the Buffalo Bills. He’s been such a special player to watch, he seems like a very good guy, and the dynamic of the team improved so much. I would have loved to see a SB win or two along the way, and the pain of a bad day still stings, but damn if this is not a great ride. Kudos to BB and McD for what they’ve done as well, of course, and all the players who connect with each other and the fan base.

Welp, he didn't fumble so it’s probably for the best.

This has been a bizzare series of posts. That people are prone to hyperbole with no intent to actually discuss is not unusual. However, you teed up any number of ways these guys coins explain the threat they are babbling on about. So far, but it seems the major threat comes from folks in red hats, and some conspiracy-minded accusations that you are running a Q&A grift where you won’t answer questions on how they think. Fascinating. Ps: If it turns out you really are running the grift as Billsy suggests, I knew it all along.

At first, I was thinking the OP was on to something. It was like I thought I saw completely dominant, yet not flawless, offensive execution against a team at the very least in the upper echelon of the NFL. But after reading the concerns about touches, I thought “Wow, I never thought of it like that, the whole touches thing.”. Then, I read your reply and I was like “Wow, I think I was right the first time and wrong the second.”. In the end, after decades of angst and frustration following the Bills, having this particular concern on this particular day is pretty freakin awesome.

I see language gender as part of the last vestiges of the patriarchy, Mupp. I’m doing my part to detoxify the civil landscape. Noted for the future though. 😎

Seniorita Muppito Concetta Alonso, I wasn’t intending to suggest you individually embraced divisiveness. While we do not always agree, and you were somewhat mean about my avatar in calling me a dullard, I appreciate your feedback and have learned and grown from it. Big picture, however, it’s impossible to deny that divisiveness is a national pastime. There is ample evidence that the Dems participate and encourage exactly that type of behavior on a daily basis, while some folks don’t want to acknowledge it.

You may indeed, sir! This is a discussion forum, and I'm happy to hear your thoughts. Your point is noted, and I don't disagree. I believe, and have shared with others on this board, that context matters in politics. For all the back and forth, all the ugliness on this board from time to time, there are precious few people read into all the relevant facts on any given topic. There are fewer still who possess the expertise to diagnose and offer opinions that are objective, nuanced and thoughtful on any given subject. What that leaves us with is a whole lot of 'self-interest'. I've mentioned in the past that one of my good friends is a position of authority at the NYS AGs office. He's a declared liberal, and would not have anything positive to say about Trump. However, when we discuss issues in context, he's thoughtful, reflective and responds accordingly. For instance, when someone here declares that no one is above the law, and I point out that there have been many, many people above the law throughout history, the response might be "Well I don't want to talk about that.". In his case, when I dropped an Eliot Spitzer reference during a Trump conversation a few years back, he acknowledged the point, laughed and acknowledged he didn't see that whole debacle coming. The point is simple, really. When I asked Matt_in_NH to share his feelings about democrat divisiveness, it's because context is important to me. That he opted to pass on any additional dialogue is fine, but from my perspective, his opinion lacks the thoughtful and reflective response that might help me understand why one is a major hot button issue, and the other is not. Anyway, thanks for the response. Go Bills.

My assessment thus far: Matt_in_NH poses a question about whether or not we are purposefully being divided; Matt brands himself a conservative of sorts; When posters respond, Matt_in_NH often responds rather aggressively and in a divisive manner; When questioned about prior divisive behavior in keeping with the question he posed, he shuts down like a church during COVID. In making a point about Trump and legal challenges to the 2020 election, he cites former AG Barr to buttress his point about divisive political manipulation; Prior to commentary about election integrity, AG Barr spoke directly about the extreme divisive political manipulation engaged upon by the democrats as it related to the aftermath of the Trump election, that which Matt_in_NH seems to prefer not to discuss; Theory: I surmise that Matt_in_NH may be artificially intelligent and purposely trying to divide us. This begs the question for non-cyborgs: Why is political and societal divisiveness applauded and supported when undertaken by one party and its supporters, and a threat to our very way of life when the shoe is on the other foot? I was going to start my own topic, but this title would have been far too long. @muppy, I am calling on you to contribute.

Some people get ##@!ed. Some people don't get $#@@ed. Seems like a waste of time to worry much beyond that. This is really about the soul of our Nation, so the badly %$#@ed can feel good about their sacrifice because their %$#@ing helped so many others feel good %$#@ed. The one thing about working with your children to make smart choices with regard to college, loans, debt and education is that in spite of missing out on the Magical Lucky Charms loan forgiveness program bennies, you have clarity and don't need a dressed up Go Fund Me campaign to improve your position.

So, circling back on this topic before you move on. You brought up the divisive nature of politics, wondering if it was purposeful etc. You were decent enough to acknowledge the legitimacy of Trump's election, something most of the d-leaning folks don't do here. They typically ignore that issue, occasionally suggest they don't want to talk about that sort of politicking, then mumble something about cults and posters past. Here's my question for you. If you agree that Trump was elected fairly, how do you square up leaders of the democrat party literally claiming he was not the legitimate President of the US? How do you square up the former head of the CIA claiming he was guilty of treason? How do those actions not impact trust and confidence for democrat and undecided voters at election time? Hillary Clinton, and the DNC of course, worked directly with a foreign national to spread disinformation about her opponent, and were accused of (and settled) election integrity issues because of it. Do you see that as normal election banter, the back and forth that we see at election time? No big deal? Or, perhaps, it's something you find unsavory but felt it was appropriate to have two completely different standards in an attempt to defeat Trump? I guess from sitting here and reading what you've shared, I'd think you would be outraged by the behavior of the dems from 2016-today. In fact, the WH press secretary was questioned about her comments that Trump stole the election back in 2016, which certainly would seem to cause faith in our election process.

I didn't say it was a good thing, Jam-Master T. I just offered what I think is a glimpse of the future and how the d party will manipulate emotion moving forward. Why would they offer $50k in debt release when they can accomplish their goal by offering $10k, and then revisit it again in roughly 2 years? Props to you on your hard work and growth as a father and human being. A strong social safety net is an important part of a civilized society, but on some level, the sort of personal accountability you demonstrated is exceptionally important to round that out. In addition, charitable giving to help the less fortunate that stays out of the government system is vital as well.

If you add Government to the lost of corporate entities, we agree there. Nothing sells quite like "the end is near!". As for coming together, there is precious little indication that that's on the table. Rather, it seems that one side wants the other to come down on their side, not necessarily to meet in the middle with some grand compromise. I would also suggest that the illusion of consensus, especially for the greater good, was often just that--an illusion. The war in Vietnam comes to mind, for example. Members of the US government delivered a clear message there. This is an interesting take. You start a thread questioning whether or not we are purposefully being divided, and it takes you to page 2 to be purposely divisive. Why? What's in it for you? Why derail your own thread? As for the subject--which media outlets do you follow without question? The one owned and directed by one of the richest men in the world? Is that the one beyond reproach? That particular publication missed on a number of stories of late, no? With all the vaunted sources highly placed, and frequently cited anonymously, that publication missed on a few stories? When did they report the Clinton/DNC connection to Steel and the dossier? The Hunter Biden story? The tea leaves on the outcome of Mueller? When did they report that Obama/Biden knew of the Clinton connection to Russiagate and disinformation? In what other aspect of life do people flock to a multi-billionaire, looking to monopolize virtually every commoditized product in the free world, for objective truth and guidance? Finally, you took a hard line position on Trump and Stop the Steal. You've suggested unconstitutional action in pursuing, and failing, to convince the court(s) that fraud was afoot. I can live with that, though there is virtually no time whatsoever to adequately investigate voter fraud after a presidential election. On the other hand, it wasn't a year before the election that Sens Warren and Klobuchar, among others, expressed grave concern about the integrity of the elections and some of the systems in place. Nobody in the dem party or free press blew a gasket, nobody wailed at the wailing wall, nobody worried that such explosive commentary was an afront to our system of government. How did you feel about dem leadership declaring the Trump election illegitimate, or that he was in power as a result of a coup, or that he was guilty of treason back in 2016? Or that one of the leading voices and most powerful men in the world ominously predicted that the intelligence agency had "six ways from Sunday" to get someone? Was that just political pillow talk? Fair game? The forerunner to "Trump is an illegitimate President" was "The Hanging Chad", and the forerunner to "Stop the Steal" was "Illegitimate President". The table was set by Warren, Klobuchar et al for Democrat's screaming stolen election if Trump won. And, why wouldn't it be? They successfully impacted all 4 years of his administration because people bought the stories they sold.

He buys down student loan debt in phase 1. Phase 2 has already started…”It’s not enough…people are still hurting…let’s get to $50k”, and they settle on the next $20k. Money is a powerful drug.

Thanks for bringing this to the table. Very fair question. I can’t speak to something as deep as AI, but it seems to me the two most recent elections had remarkable similarities. Allegations of election thievery; Allegations of inappropriate conduct with women; Allegations of influence peddling; Allegations of racial intolerance; Lying liars lying often; Allegations of inappropriate relationships with foreign adversaries; Allegations against the offspring of candidates; If it’s an issue, it’s because it works.

If only the lives of law enforcement were as valued by the liberals nationally as they are when protecting the elite in Washington….

These things are as scripted and planned out as any big budget Hollywood production ever is. In the calm light of day, analysis is simplified to the least common denominator of what Biden, Trump or whomever said. It’s all designed to herd the simpleminded in one direction or another. As for doing something stupid, you’re onto something. Big picture, it’s not just the right you have to worry about. It’s the left acting as if they are the right, and fundamentalist agnostics doing the same. Let’s be fair—there are folks on this board, right now, who wailed about Putin’s Russian disinformation campaign now quoting and promoting stories from Putin’s Russian media outlets as gospel. This is after their warning that Putin’s brand of Russian authoritarianism would spread on Trump’s watch….only to see it actually occur on Biden’s watch. I had a specific focus here, watching certain Biden supporters who complained about Trump supporters becoming the mirror image of certain Trump supporters. It’s interesting to see. Stay tuned, you’ll get a mention before too long my friend.

I’m torn on watching it. There’s so much potential for manipulation in this sort of thing, intentional or otherwise.