leh-nerd skin-erd

It seems to me the unfortunate reality is that most citizens view the availability of quality, low cost, low out of pocket health insurance as a high priority, but the willingness to pay for same as very low on their list. Insurance can and should work, but in our system, it is set up to fail (or at least not work well for many, many, many people).

Come on Gugs, this is a strange line in the sand to draw. There are plenty of cringeworthy posts on the board, especially in the Off The Wall section. You’ll have folks shooting the breeze about teachers abusing students, comments objectifying women, and lots of dialogue that might offend a wide cross section of the public. I am not here to defend anyone or ask anyone to take up the cause on my behalf, but @Beach was clearly mocking the overabundance of people on Twitter who think their opinion is the gold standard (not unlike many of us on every part of this board) and everyone NEEDS to be enlightened. At least here we only baptize 6-13 people with the holy water of our wisdom on any given day. Besides, any shot at that Eddie Haskell wannabe @John Adams is a fair shot indeed. I say that knowing I may very well face severe pretend sanctions and pretend penalties as he is one of the toughest pretend moderators on the board. What’s right is right Hendry.

It’s indeed ironic that you’re suggesting I move to a repressive regime like Russia when all I’m doing is having dialogue with you about a political rally. So far you’ve used a crappy arsonist analogy that makes no sense, changed your description of what Trump did or didn’t do twice to fit your narrative, and advocated for The State to crush a political rally that is permitted in a free society. One of us would fit right in over there, it ain’t me chief. Here, you’re back to suggesting Trump wasn’t apathetic, now it’s that he “pumped up” people. Sure, so many, many people have been prosecuted, tried and convicted using the “Pumped up” theory of law. 🤣🤣🤣 Seriously—send me something right this moment tying Trump directly to the rioters and I’ll research and respond directly as I always do. Don’t send me more “The World According to Tibsy” thought crime narratives or S-Charlie-3 meandering jibber jabber that we need a slide rule to figure out. The sitch as I see it right now is this: Dems have the house. Dems have the senate. Dems have the White House. Dems control the committee and have anti-Trump establishment Rs named Cheney (hero to the liberal cause 🤣). Dems control the DOJ. The riot was almost a year ago. Many, many rioters have been arrested and placed in jail. The investigation into the Ashley Babbit shooting has been launched, completed and closed for months now. All Trump has is Trump, though historically that seems more than enough. If you don’t have three or four hard, fast and indisputable facts directly linking DJT to the riots, you’re soon to find yourself in the same position you were post-Russiagate. Standing there, slack jawed, a dullish look in your eyes and your **** in your hand wondering what the heck happened.

There’s nothing to “BS” about. It was a political rally designed for political effect. The decision to have the rally can and will be debated, and the question about transition/tradition and allowing Biden his day can be debated as well. The reality was that Biden was going to president (even if he thought in the moment he was elected president of the local Rotary), and if I knew that, surely his team of lawyers and advisors knew it as well. Likewise, it was clear early on in the Russia investigation that no cause existed, and nothing would come of it unless Trump was caught in a procedural misstep. Same with Ukraine, same with the congressional committee immortalized with the slogan “if you exercise your rights you’re obviously guilty”. What is not debatable is watching da Democrat morph in real time. If Schiff had hard evidence that Trump was a coup plotter, the DOJ would as well. There would be no need to launch political fishing expeditions, or attempt to criminalize what you all seem to characterize as apathy. Do you believe for a moment that the DOJ under the leadership of Supreme Court Almost Justice Garland would hold back? I’m happy to revisit this issue when hard evidence against DJT is presented in front of a judge where perjury and misrepresentation by all parties can have significant consequences. That standard doesn’t apply to Congress, so toss out 80% as posturing and recognize that another 18% is manufactured.

I’ve never said that Tibsy. Since I’ve never said that, either you are mistaken or you are being untruthful. I would say the chances are better than 50/50 that you’re being untruthful deliberately. What I have said is that the “STS” rally was a political rally that represented day one of campaigning for future political events….mid terms, 2024, etc. I’ve also said I thought it was a mistake for DJT to run that particular rally on that day, and that those who broke the law should be criminally charged.

Thanks for sharing this, B. It’s not a surprise to anyone paying attention as the allegations shift from “Trump was responsible for 1/6” to “Trump probably wasn’t responsible but he didn’t not stop it neither!”. We saw that with Russia….the Dems fed their true believers starting with “treason” morphing to “why would anyone not comply with a tribunal if they are innocent” to “ok there was no treason but he didn’t cooperate as we demanded!”. It happened with Ukraine as well. The first I heard of what is shall now refer to as “da Democrat morph” was when @Tiberius signaled resignation yesterday with his “arsonist who doesn’t help put out the fire” post. I wondered why he wasn’t using the analogy that “an arsonist should be held to account for the arson, duh”. Then, today, @SectionC3 came in firing hot about Pelosi being a member of the crowd, then later on in series of posts seemed willing to go to great lengths to prove he’s coming unglued emotionally—but never quite articulating the facts substantiating the actual crime he’s accusing DJT of. I mean sure he’s got lots of conspiracy theories, he’s got several rabbit holes he’s diving down, and he’s got his posse backing him up with such gems as the old “If you’re innocent why bother availing yourself of the constitutionally guaranteed right to defend oneself” argument (this is the third time it’s been used, 4 if you include the Kavanaugh hearings). It’s because Schiffty sent out the bat signal to move to plan B—Trump was apathetic. It’s a shame really, because I agree with these good fellows about prosecuting the actual rioters from 1/6, though I do wonder a bit about whether or not defendants are being denied due process. Anyway. Thanks for posting this. I’ll dive into Schiffty’s full comments and see where they take me.

You’re repeating yourself. That’s common with folks impacted by trauma to the cranium. This may explain why you originally remembered that Nancy Pelosi was at the Capital, then remembered you forgot she was not there. Notable others that did not lay siege to the Capital: Gwen Stefani Oz, MD Oprah Winfrey Al Roker The guy who wrote “Moneyball” Donald Trump Jr Steve Jobs (dead) Thank you again.

I have no idea why you might remember things the way you do. Lack of critical thinking skills. Inability to formulate mature and cogent thought on complex matters. Cognitive impairment from a prior head injury. Graduate of Tibsy’s Master Class on Logic And The Modern Arsonist. Whatever the cause, you might want to commit to continuous personal improvement and do the best you can with whatever you have been given. Perhaps consider attending a Tony Robbins seminar. I do know your recollection was not from anything I posted. Nancy Pelosi did not storm the Capitol, nor did I suggest in any way, shape or form that she did. A notable list of others who did not: Michael Steele The Rock Mick Jagger Elon Musk Ted Kacsinski Alyssa Milano Matt Milano Greta Thunberg Donald Trump Oh, crap. Tony Robbins. Add Tony Robbins to the list of those who did not storm the Capitol. Thank you.

I have been told lots of things, and when I ask "Where is the charge/trial/verdict that proves your point?" i get this type of response. "He-he-he undermined the election. He-he-he was killing our democracy. He-he-he did other stuff I heard.". Poor Joe Biden doesn't stutter as much as some of you folks, and that poor man has a problem so bad it makes him sniff the hair of little people and forget what century he is in. All this means nothing. You're simply blurting out words that someone else focus-grouped for maximum impact on the simple. Where are the criminal charges, Tibs? So far, for all your hand wringing and carrying of Schiff's water you got nothing. Zero. Zilch. Zed. We all want to stop a steal, friend. The only difference is you were all for it when the made up story suited you, and not so much when it didn't. Same with riots. You're good when it's the right people being victimized, where me? I think it's a horrible thing across the board.

Tell me how “Stop the steal” is different than “Coup” and “Treason”. Trump did plenty of things that I felt were wrong, including holding a rally in Washington on that day. There were no “undecideds” left in America, so it wasn’t about unity or coming together. What the Dems did during his time caused incalculable harm to our process, and we see the fallout now. You can’t wear a white hat when your enemy pol Still, the potential for problems outweighed the potential for good. Better to have run the Stop the Steal from afar. However, there is a marked difference between “I didn’t like that” and “he fomented a riot”.

Because he wanted to hold a political rally on the day Congress was certifying the Biden victory. It made sense on many levels politically. In the world of competitive sports, the day after one season ends, another begins. The dems followed the same format, by casting doubt and speculation on the legitimacy of his election. They used words like “coup” and “treason” and “stolen”. Why weren’t you all turned up then?

I think the assault on 1/6 included rioting. Those r*tards assaulting police and breaking the glass at the checkpoint need to be charged. But, that’s on them, not Trump.

You are making less sense here than you did on the your “The arsonist’s biggest crime is not fighting the fire” theorem. When he was vindicated on Russia in a complete bully beat down of epic proportions, it was because the democrat party, with assurance of entrenched establishment republicans set it up. I have been vocal on the wrongdoing of the people who rioted at the Capitol and the need for criminal charges. IMO, however the greater assault on our democratic process took place with the attempt to unseat President Trump than some numbnuts in deer skin wheeling around a baby gallows. Your characterization of Trump and alleged wrongdoing fails the most basic test imaginable. 70+ years in the public eye and he’s still standing, laughing, not a criminal indictment for anything. But, you know, with the release of this incredible treasure trove of documents detailing the exact opposite of what you’ve been lead to believe—-🤣🤣🤣🤣—-maybe this is it. I don’t think he “stirred” anything. He held a political rally following the same strategy that worked very well for your leaders for nearly 5 years. I think the texts and emails confirm that, which is why I pointed it out here. I’ve condemned the rioters in Washington from day one. I’m glad they did as well, which is the whole point. My question for you is why you and key dem leadership support rioting, death and destruction everywhere outside of Washington?

Oh. That would have made a better title. As for the context of the texts and information you shared, it seems Team Trump was horrified by the rioting, huh?

Your people already tried the “phony treason oh no it was obstruction” grift with Russiagate. You can’t keep going back to the well in this one. Your attempt to conflate political rhetoric to an arsonist setting a fire was sad, but I’m happy for you that you dropped it quickly when called on it. Trump has not been charged nor convicted of obstruction in any way, shape or form beyond some dopey politicians in political committees suggesting he has been. You don’t have to be their huckleberry, Tibs. As for fomenting a riot, we have specific laws for that and to my knowledge, Trump has not been charged in a criminal proceeding with anything remotely approaching that, has he? (Hint: I know the answer, and I know you know the answer as well).

Well, no. Your analogy is silly, Tibs. Arson is a crime, so the act of setting an intentional fire is the problem for the arsonist. “Not helping to put out a fire” is not a crime for anyone, ever, is it? Or, in your future world, are we rounding up all the rubber-necker at fire and accident scenes across the country? It seems to me you’ve tapped out on the analysis that Trump was part of a grand conspiracy and I applaud you for this awakening. It’s important to know the genesis of one’s outrage. Once you move past that, the only real question is whether or not a political witch hunt is time money well-spent in Congress.

That question was for @716er because he started the “Contempt Part II+” thread. I assume he used “Part II” because the info he shared sorta blows up the Part I message points where Team Trump had formulated a devious plot to overthrow the govt. Still, in your case, it seems like you’re making the case that if you’re correct and Trump was just sitting around, apathy is criminal. It isn’t.

Wait…the narrative framed is that Team Trump and “Fox News” were behind a violent attempt to overthrow democracy. These texts show just the opposite, don’t they?

Yikes. Don’t do this! When we turn on each other, the officials win. It’s what they want. i thought it was kinda funny.

They call it a crescendo.

The question as to whether or not shutting down the economy was bad or depends on your perspective. The Democrat party benefitted greatly. Companies determine to be essential benefited greatly—Home Depot, Loews, Joe’s Liquor Store. Companies not so fortunate were not so fortunate.

I’ve wondered—were you actually a neighbor of Marv?

It's a thread about Starbucks, that's why I used Starbucks. I don't disagree, by the way, that organizers choose the low-hanging fruit, and at the risk of repeating myself, unionizing is big business. If the goal is to grow the business, the business owner should start with the customer most likely to buy their product. It's far easier to convince a person they are a victim of some evil bloodthirsty conglomerate when their options are limited and they are unsophisticated in general. See, herein lies the problem. You're conditioned to believe that a high deductible health plan is problematic, and the reality is a high deductible health plan for most people is THE answer. In fact, the move to high deductible health plans as the standard would go a long way towards solving the cost issue with health insurance in general. Unfortunately, people are conditioned to believe they are getting screwed absent a plan with a $5 co-pay to kindly old Doc Jones like it's 1954. Meanwhile, they go out and drop $1200 on a new iPhone, and $50 a month so they can order a Super Mighty from the traffic light at Delaware and Hertel. I have a family member who lurks here, a Teamster who pointed out that the benefit booklet I linked to may not reflect current offerings as there are references to 2012 in the book. I want to acknowledge that it's possible that all those plans may have been sh%tcanned in conjunction to the perpetual push for profit profit profit by Starbucks. Be that as it may, you were the one who mentioned deplorable conditions at these retail jobs. Since it was your characterization, I'll ask again---what did you mean by 'deplorable'? The concept of a high deductible plan? You're losing me again. Retail companies in general were requiring substantial experience to work the loading dock at Walmart, cover the drive through at McD's, or work the floor at Macy's? That defies both logic and common sense. Additionally, it only matters to me as a consumer. I neither benefit nor am harmed by the fact that a company chooses to hire a 51 year old female with a master's degree to stack appliances on the shelf at Target v a 17 year old male who has an abbreviated schedule at school, is industrious and wants to make a few extra bucks each week. At least, not until it impacts me in what I pay for the services, at which time I have a decision to make. And by the way--honest work is honest work and should be respected with a reasonable wage. We all have our stories--my first job included cleaning toilets (non-union employer), and some life experiences stick with you. I respect the 51 year old for the work, but that doesn't change the fact that a 51 year old may have different goals and expectations than the 17 year old, and it does not make the work inherently more valuable. I fundamentally agree with your premise here on globalization, but union's certainly contributed to the exodus. We can have a civil conversation and recognize that. I also believe at times that some union employees are very picky about how things play out in their particular industry, but seem less concerned about the plight of other employees in other industries unrelated to theirs. Many years ago, I bought a Chevy to commute from my home in the lower Hudson Valley to the Albany area when my job changed. I was in WNY one weekend, speaking to a family member who worked for GM who told me I bought a rice rocket, apparently because of a collaboration between Chevy and Toyota. He was a proud buy-American guy, at least until you got in his living room and looked at some of the electronics he liked to collect. Interestingly, I didn't point that out, it was my brother-in-law (UAW member) who pointed that out. My point here is if union members are not in simpatico with these issues, it should not be surprising that non-union individuals, business owners and corporations feel the same.

You described the working conditions as “deplorable” up a couple posts. Here, you’ve compared working in retail to working in the other unionized industries like auto production and steel mills before those industries organized 80+ years ago. What specifically makes the 6 hour slug at Starbucks “deplorable”? Btw, here’s an example of Starbucks benefit package for employees. https://www.starbucks.com/assets/7343fbbdc87845ff9a000ee009707893.pdf Finally, you keep mentioning that these jobs aren’t just for teenagers anymore. Why does that matter to the employer, if the job can be done by a teenager after study hall to begin with? I’m not anti-union, but feel like I’m pro-common sense. My father and mother were both union members, as are/were many members of my family.