leh-nerd skin-erd

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.

I have only had Starbucks at business meetings and I didn’t like it. No idea as to the allure.

When all is said and done, you have to protect you. It's unfortunate, ugly at times, but true.

A union is just a corporation by a different name, with those at the top often holding too much power and too highly compensated, with an eye toward benefitting one group at the expense of another. At the end of the day, the customer needs are subservient to both the corporation and the union. Sometimes a Union is good, sometimes a Union is bad, but at the end of the day, it seems to me that automation will be what rules the day at the local Starbucks. It is interesting, though, that the supposedly uber-progressive Starbucks has decided unionization is not in the best interest of it's employees. Do they cave? Close down the store? Seems to me there really doesn't seem to be much support for it across the board. Three stores in Buffalo, a socialist hot bed, and only one votes to unionize?

I would support removing pro-slavery statues as well. Seems like a no-brainer to me. But removing statues is symbolic, sending an athletic contingent to China is not.

Oh I’m getting the popcorn out for this one! Holy crap we agree. I feel for some of the Olympians that bust their asses and have to worry about this sort of thing, but this sacred cow BS is silly. We’ve got politicians supporting the removal and destruction of confederate statues, the recalibration of the English language and then load a bunch of out citizens on a cargo plane to a country with a deplorable record on human rights historically, and presently speaking.

I think this is why the diplomatic boycott of the Beijing games is so important. By refusing to send some wrinkled old entitled elitists to China while sending a massive contingent of professional/semi-professional athletes to visit/work/ and contribute to the economy, we send a powerful message that the Biden Buck stops in Beijing.

Don’t forget Tibsy’s Trump Coppertone meme. I think they get things backwards, a lot. On SpongeBob SquarePants they call it Opposite Day. Interestingly Biden said he was there in 38, taking fire from the Huns, not long after Anschlussing a young Austrian lass. The battle was so fierce that at one point, he was beating them off with both hands.

That’s awesome. And rather ironic. Someone told you that Trump was in Putin’s pocket, and like a multi-level marketing participant you bought it wholesale, and immediately sold to your downline marketing team to build your pipeline. So, Trump leaves office. The problem is now, you’re gobbling up memes of Trump harassing Putin, harassing him, grabbing him and preventing him from moving forward and you think it means the opposite. Meanwhile, regardless of Trump and his approach, Biden is in office, you think he’s awesome but Putin is treating him like the **** Biden has repeatedly bragged about being. If Biden had at least the tenacity to treat Putin like the Coppertone kid, Putin wouldn’t be dragging his nuts across Biden’s carpet. Then again, Biden may be setting it all up for military engagement because that’s the traditional establishment approach.

I’m still waiting for @Tiberius and his plan for this thread he started. So far I guess it’s: 1. Biden is not Trump; 2. The US should lead; 3. Biden is not Trump; Seems to me there would be more, given he started the thread.

Or folks that celebrate Christmas, Christians and Christianity or the concept of peace on earth. He was probably just having a bad day.

A coffin? I think you’re guaranteed one through something called a medicare supplement.