leh-nerd skin-erd

Who said that? I replied to @ALF for his apologist commentary on BO, Russia and blaming the republicans. I then responded to you for making a baseless and derogatory claim. Stop stomping your feet and man up.

Why would you mock the legacy of his presidency by pandering to a silly lowest common denominator comment? He was the President of the US, supposedly internationally revered by those that we call Allies and had the juice to get things accomplished. If you think he did a great job with respect to Russia, say so. If you think he did a poor job with respect to Russia, say so.

Barrack was president for 8 years, 9 if you include Biden’s tenure. Blaming his impotency on the Russia problem is absurd. Near as I can tell, his one act of defiance was expelling a bunch of low level Russian politicians, roughly 20 minutes before he vacated the Oval Office in a move clearly designed to creat issues for the incoming admin.

I don’t feel like I owe you any favors, Doc, and I’m generally not inclined to extend a favor when someone ignores basic rules of civility. My initial thought when reading the article was that it might be manipulative or context might be lacking. That prompted me to visit the senate webpage and read the bill. I’m not sure from your comments how you feel about the proposed legislation. Instead of sharing an opinion, you used your valuable time to share thoughts about my relative closed-mindedness. Ironically, the senate website solicits feedback from stakeholders on proposed legislation, ostensibly to gauge how they might feel about important issues under consideration. Perhaps a disclaimer is in order that citizens must consider the history of legislation, the thinking and experiences of the sponsor of the bill and disregard the actual wording contained therein. Do you support this or similar legislation?

You understand that you’re aligning with a character best described as a simpleton, yes? Never mind, I withdraw the question.

https://thenationalpulse.com/news/new-york-legislation-provides-for-indefinite-detention-of-unvaccinated-at-governors-whim/ When they laughed at @Big Blitz for sounding the alarm on government overreach, on his view of the marketing of the perpetual pandemic, I wonder how many would have scoffed at the thought of legislation allowing the governor and health department to come to your home, forcibly remove you, place you in a facility they deem appropriate, forcibly detain you for a period of 60 days and upon review, perpetually, and allow access to counsel if “feasible” and notify friends and family of your detainment “if feasible”. One of the more troubling aspects of this discussion over the past couple years for me was when a former poster who offered scientific analysis based on his experience/education shared his thoughts on removal of the unclean from society. I recognized that as frustration on his part that people could not see clearly that which he saw. You don’t have to have to be a virologist to see the danger in a politician or political appointee being able to scoop you up and lock you down at their discretion, and those who would support. Worse yet, there will be people who support it.

It’s telling that a news organization that will go to incredible lengths to tell a story, including exposing a 16 year old boy to the collective hate and rage of the masses, yet requires complete confidentiality as a part of a settlement for their misdeeds. Additionally, no other major news organization seems interested in the details of the story and settlement—an issue that would be a matter of massive public interest. Being part of the “free press” must be complicated.

All the great despots have a process, John.

So far so good—but I’m laying low for a while. I saw a car drive by my house real slow and I’ll be damned if I didn’t spot a powdered Whig in the driver seat.

I can’t provide a link, but I heard somewhere that Kraft’s used the pseudonym “Mr. Calls” when visiting certain massage parlors in S Florida. It all makes sense now. Criss cross. Criss cross.

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?