leh-nerd skin-erd

Very interesting, though I'm not sure you named-dropped him, shared a picture of his poster if you didn't want to involve him in the dialogue. I can't speak to why you feel the way you do about Cuba v. America. I haven't visited Cuba, have no plans to, and don't see it as a flip of the coin sort of thing. I do think, though, that some Americans do not like dissenting voices and prefer freedom of speech only when viewed through the prism of imagined elitism---I think that describes you and explains why you see things the way you do.

Trump, Donald. As for Ares, I suppose it’s possible that happened. I see he’s got some significant accolades but geesh, from a creative perspective, looks like he sorta mailed this one in. Was there only one format Obama approved of? Looks like Ares took the HOPE poster, changed the solemn look and gave him a smile and a Cuban general’s tunic.

Your experiences in Cuba, and opinions on same, immediately disqualify you as any arbiter of 'freedom of speech'.

Yes, I heard about Comey. He's very well-versed in the law, covered his tracks well and will ultimately be above the law. Smart guy, people will judge him as they see fit. And, perhaps the DOJ appeals, gets him to burn a bit mroe of his own cash to make it sting a bit. Same with AG James--seems pretty clear that she misrepresented her plans for her purchase, will claim clerical error and case will be dismissed. An old friend, a police officer at the time, always told me that with few exceptions, when law enforcement questions you, keep your mouth shut and seek counsel. These people know how to cover tracks. Of course, on the other hand....Trump has seen victories against CBS, he's got the BBC on the ropes, etc. He also prevailed in the Smith case, did a fair amount of talking then, too. Oh, and he's President--the net result of the politicization of such things. Again--you're not alone in how you feel, but you're just one of many, many voices.

You’ve mistaken my comments for a directive on how you must act or perceive things, Teef. I get what you’re saying, and that’s one way to look at it. Here’s the way I see it playing out—there’s more than enough on our President’s plate and if this distraction bothers you to a sufficient level, vote accordingly in future elections. A while back, on a subject I’ve since forgotten, another poster suggested “people don’t care” about one thing or another from the previous administration. He was possibly correct, possibly incorrect but all I can say is voters will move one way or the other and when it came down to it, Trump prevailed. I’d bet in this case—most people don’t care.

I don’t particularly like this sort of action from Trump, didn’t like it in the first term. Kimmel, Meyers etc appeal to a certain subset of people who like their leftist views, like their own brand of hypocrisy. Still, it seems to me that a president is more than capable of thinking random thoughts about TV hosts and canned dialogue throughout the minutes, hours, and days. In fact, I’d think it’s pretty common. The difference is Trump uses his platform to share his thoughts while others do not. Perhaps it’s because Trump feels, justly, I think, that the best way to communicate his thoughts is not through the MSM filter where it can be twisted, cut, copied and pasted to serve other masters. Of course, you get some of this stuff mixed in there because Trump is Trump.

In the article you linked to above, Kenneth Starr of Clinton inv fame uses the phrase “…welcome to our orbit”. I think that statement reveals an awful lot about the way certain people at that level (and inv with Epstein—-see themselves. Ideas of gravity and grounding to the rules of society do not apply to them. You’re over the target, I think.

In the interest of transparency, I’m sick to death of “stay tuned.”.

You’re shameless and your speculation shows where your head is at. You’re creepy.

No, I don’t wonder about any of that. I do wonder why the Biden admin had access to those files, were attempting to put Trump away for life and hid the files from you and I. I wonder why Harris didn’t reveal the truth about Trump during the run up to the election—she had an international audience at the debate. I wonder why Jack Smiff didn’t uncover/release evidence of wrongdoing, and how Mueller missed it when he dug through Trump’s garbage cans. I wonder lots and lots about the entire sordid affair, and who may/may not be involved. I wonder if you wonder if they are all in on it? I also wonder if you have had a series of head injuries over the course of your life.

Dems giving aid and comfort to Epstein himself? Don’t tell Tibsy, he’ll spontaneously combust.

I’m confused here. Schumer declares that the intelligence community has six ways from Sunday to get you. He doesn’t suggest legal means, he doesn’t speak of thorough, legal investigations. His messaging is quite clear here, and he’s one of the most powerful people in our government, and by extension, the world. Wouldn’t the IC be “the real people”, working at the behest of those who run the world?

Me too. One of the byproducts of my education was to think freely and pay attention. I’m not certain history looks kindly on 1960s Catholic Institutions and moral dilemmas, as painful as that is for me to acknowledge.

He’s one of the faces of the Democrat party, a Harris ally, a guy who tells Democrat voters how to vote, and to do so in large numbers. The interview shouldn’t be with him, he probably hasn’t cigared an intern is quite a few years. The interview really should have been with Harris, who obviously knew what you knew before you knew. I don’t think the behavior, documents or photos are remotely a problem for Harris, Walz or any Democrat.

I don’t think the miscreants in the Epstein saga was limited to men, it’s too big. As for the rest, fair enough. I went to Catholic school as well, tgise nuns ran a tight ship.

There’s a lot to unpack here, but i get the gist of what you’re saying. I’m reminded of this exchange between Chuck Schumer and liberal host Rachel Maddow. I found it chilling on many levels, especially in light of the Mueller probe and the insertion of the 51 former intelligence experts into the Biden laptop scandal. Here’s a NY Senator proudly declaring that the IC has multiple ways to “get” someone, and a the dopey commentator nodding right along with him. Is this the sort of thing you’re referencing?

Because I find the human element of these discussions interesting——how people rationalize hypocrisy (or in your case, the outright fabrication in your posts) especially when it comes to politics. Why did you lie about what I said? You keep using this phrase. Use your words to describe what “aid and comfort” mean to you.

I took the part that you put in quotes, but edited my post my post to add in the full sentences you posted. I am not sure that matters, but I certainly don't want to project the way I feel you and Tibs have. I now understand that you think I was equating Biden pardoning certain people with the horrific nature of Epstein's crimes. I have no idea how you arrived at that, whether you thought I was writing in secret code, or if I just typed the wrong words and you noodled it all out. That's for you to figure out---I didn't mention Epstein. I did not assume the people Biden pardoned are involved with Epstein in any way, shape or form. I would have said that if I did. I didn't. I hope that is clear to you now. Though, now that you (not me) have brought it up, it would not surprise me if any of those people pardoned--his brother, dopey son, Faucci---were involved with Epstein, who seems to cater to wealthy and famous people. Other notable wealthy and famous people I am not assuming are involved, but would not surprise to hear that they were: You know what, I started typing names and it's easier to just say the following: -Any A+ list actor or celebrity; -Any upper echelon politician from any party; -Any member of the UN; -Any powerful manager of money -lots more people

You didn't ask me to clarify that at all, you wad. Read what you wrote, as I've suggested multiple times when you've lied or flailed at making a point you seem completely incapable of making. With regard to your latest iteration, I'm happy to clarify (or dumb it down to a level you can follow) for you. Given Andy's outrage that the 'rich and famous...can do...what...[they] ...want..." and 'projection onto...political opponents and strategy' is evident here, yet he's oddly silent when his people are behaving in a similar fashion. Thus, Andy's logic and outrage are dependent upon the situation he is speaking about, and he turns it on and turns it off in a partisan fashion.

Ah, you only wanted to grandstand on the one issue, not realistically assess how things actually work. Biden granted a full and unconditional pardon to those receiving his most favored status, presumably for any/all federal crimes that might have been committed. That seems sufficiently broad to me to include exactly the types of crime you addressed, but I'm only trying to be realistic about how those things work. As for the depth and depravity of Epstein's crimes, we agree on that issue. However, let's not pretend pardoning/granting clemency to people convicted of murder is a walk in the park. I see you attend classes with Tipsy at the New School of Stupidity Projected. You grandstanded on an issue, apparently don't like honestly discussing matters of "logic" when it goes against the World According To Andy. For me, Andy, here's what you just said: As you seem to equate the two issues here it sounds like you’ve come to the position of “if he did assault some girls with Epstein, it’s not that big of a deal because look at what Clinton and the Biden’s have done”. Please feel free to point out where I said anything even remotely close to that. I know each word you typed, the context in which you typed them, and certainly could have strung them together as you dod. When you cannot point out that connection, I'll assume you just had a little mental block because while you may be a bit of a virtue signaler and grandstander on some issues (and not others), you've never struck me as intentionally dishonest.

Nope, this was you, too. Why are you babbling on about Biden and aid and comfort? It’s weird, man.

No, you said that. Read what you wrote, ya moron.

Well, your guy and your crew just preemptively pardoned family members, associates, hangers on and syndicate members, Andy. All rich, all famous. Seems that horse has left the barn? Or, maybe it’s just that logic and outrage are situational?

Sadly, much less hair to flip then when I was younger. I consider myself lucky to have gone a good part of my life with flippable hair, now I keep that which remains is cut short. Oh, and on that note, they come up with a pill to restore hair absent major side effects, I’m taking it. I may even go full Walking Dead on the line in, jabbing poor Tibsy or Feega in the leg to slow them down so the zombies get them while I get to the front of the line. On the important stuff, Mup, I think it’s important to push back in a format like this if you disagree, that’s dialogue. I am the same guy here as I am off the board. I believe what I believe, still believe I can learn from listening to others with diff opinions and occasionally still do. #believewithoutquestion simply does not resonate with me. At the same time, it is indisputable that historically, female victims of abuse were treated horribly, with a system tilted against them. I’ve mentioned in the past a liberal friend, well-connected politically who said to me one day—“You and I could fix all this.” and it’s certainly not because of any brilliance on my part (My friend, on the other hand is wicked smaht). We disagree on some things, but on others—many important things—we agree.

I don’t know if Trump did what he is accused of or not. The outcome of a civil trail on an allegations decades in the past doesn’t move me one way or the other. In a different, less liberal part of the world, then outcome of the same trial where Trump prevails leaves in the same spot. Oh, and if Trump is successful in his fight to overturn the verdict, I still won’t know one way or the other….and you’ll still believe. However….when money, power and politics collide, I am very naturally cynical of who is saying what, and why. In that regard, Mup, I think I’m pretty much middle of the road on how most people view these things. As for believing woman who allege sexual assault, I agree with you. I don’t agree 100% of the time, and again, I view criminal v civil differently. At the end of the day though, it still seems an awful lot to me like people are willing to look past the glaring issues of their own party while passing judgement on the opposition. Did Harris partnering with Clinton cause you to sit on the sidelines? I’m betting no, and I don’t judge that, I just find it sort of interesting. Oh, and I SMDH!