leh-nerd skin-erd

I agree with 6er to a point here. Maybe not the dramatic declaration of “worst internet thing evaaaaah”, but it’s pretty bad. The way I see it, I don’t walk down the street, knocking on doors and asking my neighbors what they think about life, politics, and everything else. For some reason though, Twitter is used as some sage with its pulse on humanity and our collective opinion on whatever hot issue of the day is. It’s manipulative, manipulatable, ugly, and is simply a product you can buy, or pass upon. Like most products, it’s not all bad, but bad enough for me to pass. @Doc Brown relates his fears above, but being a natural cynic, I think the ship already sailed on authoritarian billionaires and multi-millionaires not all the interested in “free speech” or free exchange of ideas, but exceedingly interested in pretending to do so.

This is fascinating stuff, Tibsy, and I appreciate you sharing it. There are some sick people in the world, this guy is just more high profile than the knuckledraggers that preach under the cloak of obscurity.

Probably true. Lots of unusual chatter from the fair share crowd on behalf of an obscenely wealthy corporation.

I absolutely agree that getting government out of the way of business can be a really good thing. Beyond that, it’s all political one way or the other. Disney creates a stir for their original position and offends some employees. Disney changes their perspective and offends some other employees. Disney gets the sweetheart deal and maximizes the opportunities in lady because it has a sweetheart deal. Disney loses the sweetheart deal and has to do business with the rest of the shlubs. In the end, it’s interesting theater, but beyond that who gives a $&@&?

I’m calling it as Mueller called it, nothing more, nothing less. Check that——it’s less, of course, less than what you’re calling it—but you’re just spitballing because you’re not sure what Mueller actually said. He’s kept you completely in the dark as to his findings on meetings with Rush’ins and whatnot. I mean, I’ve seen the report, the media coverage etc, but you’re just not dialed in. Come to think of it, you’re like Hellen Keller on this whole thing. You’re Hellen Keller-BillSy. Have a great night. This was fun.

Oh, suddenly you need the unredacted report to have an answer. It’s certainly possible we need to wait for the sequel, Mueller Unredacted: Collusion, Conclusion?! 🤣🤣

But smart enough to convince Team Mueller while leaving you on Collusion Island sending opinions from some guy named Andy Wortman, yes? What did Rob Mueller say about collusion? I forget. 🤔

Oh yeah, Garland for sure. Biden is a wild card—he could be in on it or he could think he’s the starting pitcher at the 1956 World Series.

I think BillSy thinks Mueller was in on it. Or is playing the long game. Or maybe there are clues in the report. And the media that consistently published incorrect and false information until finally tapping out 4 years later is all part of Team Trump. Stay tuned for what is sure to come! 🤣

Well done sir. I see below that BillSy wasn’t as prepared as I would have expected. BillSy rule #137- trust blindly everything from the multi-year partisan investigation except the conclusion. This is a good place for a reminder that to the left, attorney-client privilege is sacrosanct in our system until asserted by a representative of a conservative.

You don’t have to acknowledge what I already said, Punky Brewster, that’s why I said it. As for all your bluster on cowardice and preferring other better liars, puberty can be a tough thing for a young person to handle. Chances are fair that you’ll outgrow your anger and hatred when your levels, uh, normalize. In the meantime, I forgive you. Have a blessed day.

Artist rendering of the lead up to the decision CNN, and photos from just outside the “This is CNN” executive suite shortly after the news broke. ::WARNING: Some images are graphic and may be disturbing to some viewers::

My takeaway from this diatribe ended at the acknowledgement of something everyone who follows politics knows: ”Yes, other people lie too.” The reality is people love their liars, are ok with their lies, but are outraged when other liars lie in a liarly fashion. I stopped reading after that, too much mishmosh and histrionics to dig through.

I think it’s too soon to worry. Medicare isn’t really in any danger of insolvency until 2026. That’s almost 4 years off. Any sensible person knows that 4 years is a lifetime when considering the possibility of economic salvation. Something good will probably happen. Plus, the Dems have no real juice politically speaking right now, they just need more time and Republicans are hiring hit-people to kill grandma and grandpa.

This is an interesting spin on the victimization play—a Fortune 50 company,CEO salary of $32,000,000+, gross profits ranging from $22-27 billion over the past few years, annualized return to shareholders of nearly 13% over the last 5 years, and with a sweetheart deal of all sweetheart deals established 50 years ago at stake. On the other hand, it is interesting to see how successful the enterprise has been when operating under a fiscal and regulatory umbrella of their own design. In the end, I suppose, the tax collectors need to find a way to get whatever is necessary from Disney, and if local tax rates increase, they increase. ps: In response to the headline, Disney has its own government because elected officials allowed it. I’d have loved to be a fly on the wall during those negotiations!

“Just because worm in water no need to bite every time”. -Confufish c. 482 BC

Classic Frenx!

Ah, so you believe that the most important thing to come from this type of editorializing is scaring seniors to impact the outcome of the midterms? This the most recent version of Biden's infamous "They gon' put y'all in chains..." speech? I clicked on the links you shared with Chef Moneybag$$ and was hopeful there would be a more nuanced argument against Scott's proposal. If it's there, I cannot find it. Near as I can tell, the author feels that everything included in the SS and Medicare legislation is untouchable, no improvements can be made to either program, and that to even suggest such a thing is aberrant and a crime against humanity. Same with his proposal on school choice and parent's having a say in the programs they fund in large part. I am not at all interested in scuttling Social Security. My wife and I have 40+ years of contributions to that entitlement and I certainly expect to collect from it. Medicare is what it is, and financial problems with both programs notwithstanding, I can't imagine those programs being dismantled.

Hey Alf, I clicked on this link. There’s nothing in the article that hilights any of the Rick Scott plan that makes it bad for seniors. It doesn’t go into any detail on why it benefits the non-fair-share-sharers, better alternatives that should be considered, or why the author write the plan “could” cause the demise of S3’s or Medicaid, v how it “would” cause the demise of these social programs. It was the equivalent of being caught at the wrong table at a graduation party when the crotchety old great uncle sits down and opines on life and how everyone always tried to screw him. What is it about this that caught your eye?

In an earlier post, ole BillSy wondered aloud at what a “conservative attorney” had to “hide” when he asserted attorney/client privilege. He’s got to be doubly concerned with two parties trying that old flimflam! Stay tuned for outrage!

No, not really. This is awkward.

Thanks. In the case of property taxes, I think for many it ultimately boils down to a few questions: 1. Is there sufficient value received for the cost incurred? 2. Projecting forward, what’s the tax situation going to look like in those golden retirement years? 3. What is the trend as it relates to population growth or decline with respect to the tax burden? 4. Access to medical care an individual feels most comfortable with, most particularly later in life; 4. Given questions 1, 2, and 3, 4, is there a place that offers a better, more equitable option? One thing I found particularly frustrating occurred during the pandemic. There was quite a bit of pressure on business to shut down/close and/or give back to the community. Late fees were eliminated, an eviction moratorium was set in place, banks, cable companies, credit card companies all called upon to do the right thing. However, when it came to property/school tax….nothing. No temporary waiver of late fees. No payment plans to help the people. In my case, for the property I own, the bills arrived quite promptly with insets telling the consumer that regular bill pay options were suspended because the town offices were closed. The bills also prominently indicated the substantial extra charges due if payment was one or more days late. That’s more serf-king relationship than anything else in context, and an important consideration for me. When I consider my future in this particular blue state, and consider my 5 bullet points, the only real consideration is option 1. That’s all about access to family and has very little to do with the state, high tax rate and deductions to make me feel like I’m getting a good deal. I appreciate the reply.

It’s weird because the body of the story notes that Eastman is asserting that the documents are covered under the umbrella of attorney-client privilege. Is that newsworthy? And why not just use that as a headline? That’s a fundamental legal principal that dates back hundreds of years in our country and to olde Ÿè Ènglande before that. I understand how you feel, generally though. I can’t understand why the J6 proceedings aren’t televised, that full and unredacted transcripts aren’t released, that selective leaking absent context is permitted, and why the free press isn’t pounding the table for complete transparency.

That wasn't the question. To quote myself from just before I wasted my time yet again: Imo, your approach is that you pose a question or questions, expect answers but rarely answer directly yourself. It’s classic deflection, and that’s fine, but it makes it hard to take you seriously. Then why all the links from left wing outlets that purport wrongdoing and criminality on the part of DJT? You consistently refer to non-believers as cultists and provide links that align with your dogma. Your actions suggest you care deeply what the media suggests is the truth, up to and including using them in an attempt to buttress your arguments. Sure I care. I'm trying to get as fair a picture of the world as I can from sources that are generally not worthy of unconditional trust. I have a belief system based on my experiences and my point of view. However, in the case of, say, Trump/Russia and Mueller, the reality is that nothing came of it. That's not me buying into right wing media, that's a 100% certifiable fact. Fox News, for example, never broke the HRC aligned with Russia story, or that Obama and Biden were briefed on her campaign's involvement. That's troubling to me, as troubling as the WaPost quoting anonymous source after anonymous source and getting the entire story wrong. Anyway, I had hopes you would answer directly on the simple, innocuous questions I posed, but it exceeds your capacity. Thanks for taking the time to answer directly. Perhaps, one day, others shall benefit from your leadership and follow suit!

DR is long gone from this website, friend. I said what I said, and it applies to everyone, myself included. However, as in politics, certain rules apply. Imo, your approach is that you pose a question or questions, expect answers but rarely answer directly yourself. It’s classic deflection, and that’s fine, but it makes it hard to take you seriously. When you direct a question to me, I (usually) try to answer directly. I realize I’m not always on topic, may drift a bit, or write a mini-manifesto. If I have a follow up question, the easy answer is for you to respond “whataboutism!. In this case, I acknowledge your feelings about the Durham investigation, your feelings about bombshells and your absolute belief that Trump broke the law and for reasons unknown or unshared has yet to be prosecuted. You could be correct. I have acknowledged listening to the original complaint, being somewhat willing to keep an open mind as Pelosi et al pursued the Russia angle, and ultimately decided that the entire fiasco was political in nature. It is inconceivable to me—in spite of the things that bother you—that 4 years and $40m could end with such a thud when Mueller made whatever case he was trying to make. I could be wrong, but I’d place the odds at 1 in 10,000. So there you. I asked two questions earlier today, and would be interested in your thoughts as a Trump hater and Russia purist. Here is a summary: Was it incumbent on Obama/Biden to come clean on the connection (Clinton and Steele), to allow us all to give pause and consider what might actually be occurring, and to give their supporters a more nuanced view of what was going on? They were briefed in 2016. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/10/07/john-brennan-confirms-he-briefed-obama-on-russia-election-scheme-n2577629 With all their highly place sourced, guarantees of anonymity and the like—-do you think major media sources (WaPo, NYT etc) knew about the Clinton connection and chose not to report it, or that maybe their sources failed them?