leh-nerd skin-erd

I still can't quite wrap my head people being entrapped to enter into a frigging kidnapping plot for anyone, let alone a governor. You can't find them guilty of course, if the law acts as a criminal, but geesh. On top of that, listening to this control freak post-kidnapping would be a fate worse than going to jail.

I hear stories like this and it makes me wonder what the rules are. I followed the thread you referenced and it was as you’ve suggested—everyone with an opinion, billionaires good billionaires bad etc. Not sure why you would be punched in the nose on that stance—-was it discussing funding at all, or because you’re an advocate of the public funding as it currently stands? If that’s off the table, and the dome is off the table, aren’t we pretty much limited to “It’s good to build it” v “No stadium is needed.”?

I apologize for calling @B-Man a bell-bottomed reformed hippy crypt-keeper. Not because I feel bad, because I don't, but we need to be picking that architect brain of yours as the stadium is going up in the near future. Plus I may have been hacked.

I, for one, appreciate your approach on the issues and have never not understood your perspective. I can overlook the fact that you're a bell-bottomed reformed hippy posting from the crypt, and that you have bot-like tendencies. It's been said that 60 is cool, 67 is way old. I said it, actually.

This seems completely reasonable and I support stream of consciousness posting. On the other hand, if you were actually the bot, I feel like this is how you would sow seeds of suspicion about him. Now I don't know what to think.

Your position is that Trump is not being prosecuted or charged with criminal activity because Michael Cohen was charged with criminal activity and and prosecuted? That's pretzel logic. The scenario you laid out does not support your contention that there are two justice systems in America. What it supports is that one person was presumed to be guilty of criminal acts, was tried and found guilty, the other(s) were not. That's not to say there aren't two, three, four or more systems applied--we probably agree on that--- it's just that what you have laid out isn't indicative of that premise at all. Still, your positioning here is that everything is "obvious". I'm really struggling to understand what's in it for law enforcement NOT to prosecute a case so easily won that we can sit here in our relative ignorance and know, with certainty, that conviction would follow prosecution as night follows day.

What’s your explanation for the lack of criminal charges against Trump? Is law enforcement in on it? Are they Cultists?

No sir! How dare you sir! Things that I am most definitely not down with: Middle-aged women in less than sensible swimwear, any Canadian/European-lite male who thinks the Speedo is a form of personal empowerment and expression, and Donald Trump as nominee to speaker of the house! Things I am most definitely down with: The coming together of people of all backgrounds, peace in our time, cognitively unimpaired candidates for President under the age of a million, and internet emoji etiquette! My assumption having followed your posts, Sir, was that you were being whimsically sarcastic with your post. The thumbs up emoji implied agreement with the sentiment expressed. I considered, but dismissed, beer mug, checkmark, trophy, and green vomit person! We may arrive at the same conclusion while taking different paths, but we arrived nonetheless. Good day to you sir!

What’s your explanation for the lack of criminal charges against Trump?

Makes perfect sense, of course. They can't really say much about the testimony, but they can assure their readers that the Wharton School of Business graduate known for speaking eloquently and articulately yammered on like a giddy schoolgirl in front of the panel looking to destroy her, her family, her father and their entire way of life. You would really get better coverage reading People magazine.

I understand the broader point of crime in general, but it seems sort of silly to point to all the other places in the world that have a crime issue in a thread specifically about NYC. I There's a problem there. It's not a secret. These are not the words of a Mayor NOT concerned about current crime and the trends looking forward. **************** https://www.npr.org/2022/02/04/1078358105/nyc-mayor-eric-adams-applauds-federal-help-to-fight-crime ADAMS: I believe it's a combination. And I continue to say we have many rivers that are feeding the sea of violence in our city. And we have to dam each river. And the president's visit yesterday was one of the dammings that we're calling for. And that's to stop the flow of illegal guns in our city. But there's other things - the housing crisis. The mental health is another river. So these rivers are really filling up the sea. And that's my job - to dam these rivers. ***************** I was in NYC last July, not far from Time's Square. The police presence was considerable as a person had been shot in Times Square just a few nights earlier. We had no issues that particular night, though I typically keep my head on a swivel to begin with. Cool place--never my cup of tea generally speaking when it came to larger cities. My wife grew up near White Plains and used to head into the city to hit the dance clubs (late 1970s). She liked the excitement of NYC but never pushed to live there. (Sidebar, somewhat crime related- I have to check with her again, but there was some Son of Sam connection to a club she was at one night. Either he shot someone nearby when she was there, or police traced him back to the club that night. I can say with confidence she was not implicated in any way, though she loves those Dateline murder mysteries and is always trying to get me to eat organic green jello. Says it's a great source of essential vitamins, and why would anyone make that up?).

Of course, Mup, paying based on what you bought your property for isn’t really “fair” when you consider services provided and the burden carried by your new neighbors all other things being equal. I understand the appeal, just an observation. In this scenario, a well-heeled lady of elegance and class, children grown, substantial assets accumulated over a lifetime of fancy-gowned balls and power-brokering, high end soirées, and massages by the infinity pool at the country club overlooking the harbor certainly has an advantage over a hard-scrabble blue collar kid from WNY trying to buy in for a better life for his family. It has to be very mupsetting just trying to break through the green wall of high society. The other side of course is the re-evaluation of property values that is sure to follow in communities across the Empire State. When that process begins, as it likely will in communities across the state, the current tax situation will look like a grand bargain.

Death and disease was good for the democrats in the run up to the presidential elections. It gave them a boogeyman to target in spite of mountains of evidence —and daily press conferences to bring the nation up to date — that the Trump White House was actively engaged in working toward a vaccine. The vaccine was delivered. Death and disease are not good for the democrats in the lead up to the midterms. It makes them appear weak and ineffectual, and reveals a lack of leadership at the top. Daily press conferences are something this tired old man posing as president simply could not handle. The media approach to reporting on COVID, the number of dead, the numbers of vaxxed and boosted Americans etc is most certainly a choice based on their agenda. One can certainly disagree on what that agenda actually is, but the facts are clear here.

Obviously.

And?

You can pretend you’re a long deceased president for all I care. You’re spinning a tale of unknown communities, mysterious posters, and referencing websites that a few posters here seem to be obsessed with. I’m not one of them. Everyone has the right to be a d$#@ once in a while, but there’s no need to abuse the privilege.

Well, no, Billsy, that's a separate issue altogether. If your safe space is dealing in absolutes, we can do that. The GQP should be prosecuted when the GQP is involved in criminal activity. I don't think the GQP should be prosecuted, harassed or threatened when there is no criminal activity. That's where we probably disagree. Of course. I don't recall anyone lobbying for the Gore team to be prosecuted for questioning the sanctity of our elections, or sowing seeds of discontent. Even though it's clear W prevailed on election day, sometimes these things are litigated.

Dude, you're pussyfooting around a question about whether or not you're comfortable with legal maneuvering. There's no trick question in play, resolution through our civil justice system is a hallmark of our way of life. When you syfh, do you hear rattling?

I wasn't clear. The only thing relevant to my question was your perspective on legal maneuvering to delay certification. To your second point, your question is presumptuous and ambiguous.

No, probably not, El Doctoro. Yet Billsy had a couple moments recently when I thought...maybe we can revisit certain conversations. I just like to know the base line we're dealing with. This goes along the lines of those types of subjects where "Everyone knows it..." , only to find out that what everyone knows was wrong, or unproven. I just wanted to know his position here.

Point of clarification here, Billsy. Do you consider a legal effort to delay certification criminal in nature? The reason I ask is because on the one hand, the Democrat 1/6 Committee states emphatically that this supposed text, lacking any context whatsoever, that there was an attempt to "overturn". The text, assuming it's accurate or even relevant, indicates an effort to obtain" a delay of 10 days". Those are two different things.

Dude! For a free corporate press to remain truly free, must protect one's anonymous sources even when their success rate on items of national security is 4/10. Rest assured these sources are official, it's in the story. Keep your chin up--even though you got flimflammed on the urinating hookers from Stalingrad, Michael Avenatti, Potsie Vindman and Fritz Mueller, don't sleep on burner phones just yet. This has to be the answer. It just has to be.

To be completely honest, I don't really care one way or the other. I always (usually) have a good time when I attend a game at Highmark, and I always (usually) have a good time when I watch on the 75" screen in my climate controlled house. I get the simplified argument, but that's the problem, it's a simplified argument. NYS government and the spending programs are a leviathan, and to target one specific expenditure in a 'billionaires v children' cage match seems quite unreasonable to me. If we're going to speak fairly, there are all sorts of programs and expenditures tilted toward the benefit of some, at the expense of many. Put another way, it seems to me that with so much frigging money going through the system, we ought to be able to have a public/private stadium partnership AND money for children, old folks, the homeless and everyone else.