leh-nerd skin-erd

Good thoughts from here Deek.

I want to be clear here. I don’t care about this in the least, other than to say I agree with you that normal people, loving normal lives, under normal, non-Congress rules, should avoid superimposing their faces on cartoon characters flying about and engaging with other cartoon characters with the face of other co-workers superimposed on them. I concur that it would likely set a meeting in place with real life HR people and termination of employment would be a distinct possibility. Kudos to Lauren Boebert, she a tad nutty for me personally, for using her limited time to point out the non-cartoon antics of fellow members of an ironically cartoonish Congress. Unfortunately, she could have spoken for 24 straight hours on real life issues that are of concern to me and still not had enough time. Obviously, though, condolences to the cartoon relatives of the deceased cartoon character for their loss.

I think it’s more that we have access to so much more information than ever before, and that things like this have happened since the dawn of time. Malicious prosecution, incompetence during investigations, tilting the jury pool is hardly new. In an odd way, what we’re seeing is progress as the benefit of the tilt extends to people that historically may not have benefited from it. Looking at the Jussie Smollette case, if you change his name to Jussie Kennedy is anyone surprised by the influence of money, wealth and power? I’d bet most people doing their jobs are honest and decent people trying to do the right thing. This case is a disaster, a travesty if for now other reason than whomever was in charge of Kenosha decided to let it burn and anarchy reign. Just about everything that followed was predictable.

A lady I work with got “the call” today. Apparently her 7 year old was in her assigned pod-seat in school and on 11/15, a child in the same pod-section tested positive for COVID. “The call” came from the school advising her that her daughter must be picked up, quarantined and remain sequestered for 12 days because the (apparently) vaxxed child spread the vid. That, of course creates all sorts of challenges: Both parents work, ironically in part to pay for the privilege of send their child to school. So time off will be essential to watch the unpodded child, who may or may not be positive; Both parents feel the mandates and COVID push is a political issue, not a medical issue, so words were exchanged with the school principal; The 7 year old has a sister who attends the same school, lives in the same house, rides the same bus who is not subject to removal from school and depodding. She’ll be in attendance tomorrow, and when my friend inquired as to the logic therein, she was told “not my job, I don’t make the rules”. See bullet point 2. Blue states, go figure.

Fair enough, but I have to tell you--it's a fair bet a number of jury members want to put him away on the murder charges regardless of what the footage shows. It's simple math really, gun control is a hot button issue, and invariably when someone shoots another the instinct for some is "he's guilty". On the other hand, if the defense made a compelling argument that he had no choice in the moment, it will be enough. By the way--while you see it as crystal clear, and I lean toward the self-defense angle, the jury has had the case for two days and it seems they don't see it as a slam dunk. Narratives matter.

No hard feelings, but that wasn't my intent. I generally appreciate your ground and pound approach to asking questions, and will acknowledge I'm incorrect if at some point I see the importance of the question. It doesn't matter why he was there, unless of course he's acknowledged being there to off some rioters. That hasn't been the position taken by the defense. That's the prosecution's assertion, wild child white supremacist travels to kenosha to dust some heros. If the prosecution convinces the jury that's what happened, it doesn't matter why he really was there even if it was to save the world from rioters. If the defense prevails, it doesn't actually matter if he WAS there to shoot some boy scouts jamboreeing around a campfire made with expensive furniture from a local store. At this point, the trial boils down to which side sells the more credible tale to the jury. All the rest is window dressing.

Settle down Chef Pippy Longstocking. I just showed up at at the ho-down and haven't even grabbed a beer yet. I'll rephrase. It doesn't much matter why he was there. It's a free country, and other people were there, lots of them, and not a whole lot of them are on trial for murder. Why do you think that matters?

Assuming his reason wasn't to wax innocent individuals on the street, does it matter?

In a free society, there can be no room for memos! The problem is that the Dems need to send a memo about the memo, but in a free society there can be no room for memos! 🤯

Beasley is a receiving genius, a very capable guy who will retire a Bill with a SB ring+ if all is right in the world. The fact that we have ongoing discussions on how good this guy actually is shows how far we have come as a franchise.

I was speaking more to national pundits than our merry little band of misfits, Tim. I agree with you that if he had common sense, he would not have been there armed or otherwise. Still, the question remains at one point does the average citizen decide when a city is burning to the ground with no assistance from govt, when IS the time to render aid?

Presumptuous.

What’s lost on all these “he shouldn’t’a been there” people is he had every right to be there. He’s under no obligation to stay away, avoid the area or steer clear, heck we learned that in Rambo.

Some men see things as they are and ask “Why?”, I see things that never were and ask “Why not?”. It would be presumptuous for me to assume he wanted to be welcomed back, it’s not at all presumptuous to declare I’ll be there because I will. You have to know the difference or your tenure of pretend moderator may well be brief. Have you no originality sir? You’re an amiable dullard!

What I believe in personally—which is worlds away from how you as a simpleton have chosen to characterize me—is important to me personally. That doesn’t change regardless of what you or others think—that’s the point with deeply held personal convictions. So Tibsy, if the dye is cast because you and folks like you buy into the notion, for example, that you’re a perpetual victim because of your upbringing, life experiences or the like, it simply is what it is. It changes nothing for me.

You’re losing what little focus you have, likely because you’re consumed with changing what other people post. Once @John Adams brings the pretend mod hammer down, you’ll be singing a different tune and I’ll be here to welcome you back so long as you are humbled, reflective and rehabilitated.

We both know there are serious questions about whether or not Flynn lied to the FBI, and as evidence previously withheld from the defense was revealed, so did the defense approach to the case. Be that it may, I demand justice.

@John Adams , Tibs nefarious action of changing another poster’s text is a clear violation of TOS and probably violates the spirit of The Hague Convention of 19ought7 and is in conflict with the Paris Climate Accord. I exercise my right to hue and cry!

I left you off my post because I assumed you must be crazy busy with the pretend moderator gig! I was trying to be nice knowing how hectic it can be to issue pretend bans and pretend warning points, and this is the pretend thanks I get! Some people!

Fair enough but it seems to me that this is exactly the type of play that the architects of “clear and convincing evidence” had in mind when considering overturning the on-the-field call. There are questions that can be answered both ways, the on the field guy made the call and onward.

Hold up. A few posts up, you were citing the jets glove hand as evidence the foot behind the hand wasn’t down. Now, with a screen shot showing the foot down, you’re dismissing it? On the plus side, I’ve reached out to copyright “Blur of nothingness”, and before long, you’ll be like the guy who shared the idea to create the restaurant that ultimately became Taco Bell but did not know what he had.

@Chef Jim read the above post and get back some of those IQ points JA swiped from you on the d-low. We’ll get you back in the mid-80s in no time!

The only reason I think you’re “for it” is because the dozen or so posts in this thread where you clearly indicate you’re “for it”. The Benghazi debacle came about because a US ambassador and members of his security detail were murdered on the watch of the Obama administration, the administration cooked up a story as to the root cause of the attack which was quickly revealed to be false, and the Secretary of State was directly responsible for overseeing the safety of the ambassador. You’re comparing that to a political committee targeting individuals looking for, in your words, cool Christmas presents that may or may not exist? To targeting a guy who does a podcast? Law enforcement has a virtually unlimited number of options to investigate all of this, and the political capital to run with it. Yet… I was not in favor of the Starr investigation, I was a bit more liberal minded in those days and saw it as a political witch hunt. As that morphed into Clinton’s escapades with Lewinsky and his perjury charges, coupled with Hillary’s attack on the women he victimized, I thought it was a waste of time. I’ve come to realize Clinton’s hubris was his undoing, he viewed himself as the smartest person in the planet and exposed his throat to his enemies. In the end, however, it was irrelevant as his wife went on to be the flag bearer of the dem party, the heir apparent to a new class of stunningly hypocritical woke voters.

This sounds dramatic enough, with “undermining democracy”, “peddled…conspiracy” and wondering aloud about thought crimes that have yet to occur. It means nothing. Still, you’re clearly pro-tribunal and pro-dirty politics, and you don’t seem to have any idea what it is that they plan to find. I’m not surprised, of course, because they haven’t said what they expect to find when interviewing Bannon, Meadows or anyone else. They use the same nonsensical argument over and over and over, and that is “We’re going to dig, speculate, leak and manipulate the American people because we can….”. If history is any indication, it won’t be too long before you’re humming along with the inevitable “If they have nothing to hide, they should just submit”. There’s nothing sacred about that. Oh, and where was your moral high ground when dem leaders ran the grift on Trump stealing the election, or staging his coup when he beat Clinton? You don’t have to be their rube, Dazzy. Almost forgot—thank you for the honest reply. I disagree with all of it but I appreciate the time spent.

@daz28 we were having a civil conversation on Mr. Bannon and the Democrat beacon shining the light of truth on what happened on 1/6. Then, you were gone. What is Bannon and/or Meadows going to produce to bring down the Rs? What truths shall they reveal that have you so revved up?