leh-nerd skin-erd

You were emphasizing something I had addressed and imo was pretty clear on. Yes, of course there is room for differing opinions on that tweet. It's not even close, especially sine your 'framing' (interesting word play) is in direct contrast to other things he said the same day. I asked about Biden's comments and you didn't offer an opinion. I assume that's a no fly zone? Dude-send me the address of the igloo just in case I survive the initial purge. You can trust me.

I addressed that. You didn't send a tweet, you sent me text in the body of your reply. You said that it was deleted, I expressed concern about the format (it's not a Tweet, for God's sake I assume we can agree on that), and pushed forward with the assumption that it was accurate. I provided the context important to share. Why are you yelling? 🙄

No, but I think they lop off a limb or two. It's a conversion thing, I think. Honestly I'd say burn it all down just based on the metric system alone. 12's are so much easier to work with than 10s. Don't forget , in the US, we get 12 donuts in a dozen while you poor bastards are out ordering a Decible of Timmy Hos. Just imagine 4 people , 12 donuts, 3 each. In Toronto, 4 people, 10 donuts, well that's Thunderdome man.

You're asking a lot--you're asking me to take what you wrote as gospel and that's not normally my thing. “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.” That said, this doesn't strike me as celebrating violence, death or destruction in the least as suggested in the anonymous sourcing. It strikes me as resignation that the vote was rigged, that people were extremely frustrated by that fact. Before you all go jumping on me for that--it's the same sort of rhetoric used when other leaders spoke about violence and rioting and looked the other way for political gain. At the same time, Trump has been widely criticized and excoriated for being exceptionally blunt in his manner and tone (often fairly, and one of the things I didn't particularly care for during his presidency), I'm quite certain he was capable of being direct and candid if he wanted to celebrate violence. Again, at the risk of being repetitive, if this tweet was beyond question we don't need double secret sourcing, do we? I asked our boy @transplantbillsfan to be so gracious as to provide the top 3 or 4 reasons that R voters were 95% behind DJT (his numbers, not mine) at one point in the thread about finding common ground. I'm actually pretty interested in his response based on some of the comments he shared there and the way a whole boatload of you folks think you think we think. Stepping away from this for an issue, having answered as honestly as I can: Do you think Biden's comments that BLM protestors would have been treated differently by law enforcement had they stormed the Capitol? I see an armed response, physical interaction, acts of bravery against anarchists, lines drawn and a reportedly unarmed women shot in the neck and killed. No shots to the leg, no silly rubber bullets, no allowing the ragers to rage, just some really special folks sworn to uphold the law doing the best they can to uphold the law against poor odds. So far, no calls to defund the Capitol police from lawmakers or soon-to-be President Biden, just the insinuation that the response was racially disproportionate because the dead folks are white. What say you?

I may need to be eliminated in the great cleanse many of those on the left and MSM is calling for, but I know a winner when I see one. You sir are a winner.

Don't take things out of context DocDawk, it makes you look shallow. I'm happy to look at the tweet that Daz referenced that supports what he said it did. Following the logic, I complained about anonymous sources, he referenced a DJT tweet that he indicated clearly backed up the anonymous source. He asked if I saw the tweet, I replied that I had not. His next reply was moved to Don Jr. I've replied to that. Now you jump in, referencing the horses mouth. How hard is it for you brave and noble souls to send the tweet?

Look, I try to keep this civil, but at risk of being labelled a douche why the %$#@ are you asking me about Don Jr on NYT article citing anonymous sources about his father? I know that Hunter banged his deceased brother's wife but does that mean Joe did to? I wouldn't think so, but I have to be honest--I think you guys would buy it if the right publication quoted a local Starbucks barista saying she saw it happen. Send the tweet or move on. I understand how you feel, it really should be as simple as sending a copy of the tweet.

Before we try again, let's establish some ground rules. I made no comments about "Don Jr", and I'm assuming the anonymous sourcing issue I have long taken issue with wasn't about Don Jr speaking to his aides. If it was, feel free to share. If not, was "Don Jr" the issue you wanted to discuss? As for Trump's "own tweet", feel free to share. It's your argument, not mine.

Your willingness to accept commercialized rumor mongering because it catches you in the emotional bread basket is your burden, not mine. I don't read Trump's tweets, I don't really read anyone's tweets, but it seems to me we would not need a left-leaning newspaper to write a National Enquirer type story citing mysterious anonymous sources highly placed in the WH if his tweets revealed exactly the same thing. But you go ahead and be outraged because Kimmi said that she overheard Jenni say that Ronnie had a side hustle with Nikki. That sort of thing is always true, everyone knows that. That's why it works.

Maybe, but on the other hand, you're a case study in accepting a rumor based in a riddle wrapped in speculation as absolute, unquestionable fact. I've never understood why people would accept as fact something this incendiary without question, blindly loyal (ironically) to a commercial endeavor with a widely acknowledged slant toward reporting stories a certain way. I rarely see it in any other walk of life, blind loyalty to the rumor and grist mill. We learned all of this by about 5th grade, yet, here you are. Far be it from me to suggest that in everyday life, you would be rightly accused of being lead around by the nose without a shred of evidence backing up the claim. But, tarry on, you can trust everything you read.

Let me guess--and I haven't read it yet. Anonymous sources? Sources deep within?

Nah--you're on to something here. The challenge is the format. I engage often with folks that are left/far left, and nary a cross word between us. Admittedly I haven't spoken to any this week, but I imagine it will go the same as it always does. It's very easy to take swipes at another and dig your heels in when someone is not sitting across from you responding.

Why was it high? Be specific if you will--give me top three or four. That's the question you as a filthy footed sandal wearing hippy stoner beach bum* need to answer. *We tease because we love. I have a big nose and lazy eye--have at it.

You're the Canadian Enrique Iglesais-- a man with a smooth jazz rhythm in his soul and boy-next-door good looks. Men wanna be your friend and girls wanna get wit ya. Who would put you on ignore? The old expression "out if the mouth of babes with screen names Over 29 years of fanhood..." is relevant here.

I agree that there are usually three sides to every story, side A, side B, and the truth somewhere in the middle. That applies to what I think as well, and one of the reasons I stick around is to hear other voices. One poster took a shot at me recently for thinking I'm the "smartest guy on the board", and that one made me chuckle as well. My first thought was "Hardly!", but I'm smart enough to pay attention and strong enough to defend what I believe. My point on you taking swings wasn't that you're solely responsible for anything, just that it reads to me sometimes that you're suggesting you wander in like a baby doe and people set upon you. I don't see it that way. One of my faves of yours is 'cultists', which where I come from, isn't a compliment. This board is no less echo-chambery, no less toxic at times, no friendlier a place to be, but the dynamic has shifted. I take very little personally here, but folks take their shots at me and they are not always nice, warm or fuzzy. Who cares? I told another poster one time in a PM that imo one of the things I thought he should consider was the old adage of 'When you lay down with dogs, you get fleas". To be clear, that was not a reference to you, but it was reference to this board and some garbage posted. Unlike one of the better posters on the board(s) @billsfan1959, I'm unable to see beyond what I think is coming with this presidency, congress and senate. Before DJT became president, I had pretty much resigned myself to the notion that most of the political creatures in Washington are cut from the same cloth--some likely start out noble, quickly morph into something else, and those that stay around the longest turn into a Joe Biden. I didn't see much difference between a Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer, and early on in the Trump campaign and admin I saw them working directly against him in spite of the victory. Sure, they glommed on when he started having success, but there is no deep ethical conviction to serving the will of the people. They'll slide right back into form, raging against the opponent, propping up wives, sons, daughters and brothers in lucrative positions just like the future current douche in the WH. I'm not a proponent of violence, see the anarchists who stormed the Capitol as no different than the anarchists who burned buildings, looted stores, victimized citizens and murdered citizens over the summer. That applies here, that extends to the other board. I don't engage in that talk nor will I. Like many on my side of the aisle, however, my skin crawled when I watched Biden talk about how racist law enforcement defending the Capitol was relative to what might have happened if those that stormed the building were "BLM" anarchists. What made it particularly offensive was seeing those inside, our 'leaders'--no doubt many who railed about 'defunding the police' --cowering and praying like hell that the law enforcement line would hold. As Biden spoke about the soft and gentle approach, a rioter was put down like a dog as tends to happen in those situations. No pass for the white girl. No martyrdom because she's not a cause d'jour, not a Michael Brown, or Jakob Blake, just a foolish and violent act that ended the way those things tend to end, and our new leader and his attempt to unify with some good old fashioned race baiting. Why? Because it works. Anyway, to the extent I have something to offer, I'll stick around. It seems to me that time is coming to a close, but who knows.

“Never confuse George with Donald.” -me, watching an old geezer flip the script back 20 years before being saved by the Missus. I’m particularly interested in how he deals with Chairman Mao. We can agree on RR.

Herein lies the problem and why we disagree on 'they both do it'. We've gotten to the point where you, an otherwise reasonable guy it would seem, view an offer to reduce the level of compulsory taxation under threat of incarceration as an attempt at 'buying' a vote. That's akin to a mafia play where the protection money required at $100 a week is actually a gift to the victim because it wasn't $200. But, folks are so beaten down by the system that they're thrilled to know that the tax rate is staying the same! In a similar vein, when the issue of SALT tax deductions came up, the chief tax collector of NY complained about the unfair impact on NY, folks went around nodding their head in agreement without ever stopping to suggest that perhaps the undue tax burden could be addressed. I'm pro-tax, btw, happy to do my part, but when positioned as the problem by an entitled rich a-hole like Biden who avails himself of tax planning I simply could not afford, I get offended. As for senility, sorry FR, we disagree on his current mental state. He's sliding downhill fast, and it's not just old guy static in the attic. Watching his wife tend to him and try and keep him on track was just pathetic. If you personally think he and Trump are the equivalent in vigor and mental capacity, God Love ya man. I never got into dogging these guys for errors on the campaign trial--nucular, 57 states, corpsman, covefe. However, Trump was working 22 hours a day creating energy and inspiring his supporters to come out, Biden appeared 90 during his 10 minute, no question, no pressure bi-weekly presser before heading back to the home for his puddin.

Well, we agreed on one thing today. Biden’s greatest attribute is he hung around long enough to see a nation crippled by a pandemic to the extent that they would look past the obvious character flaws that had disqualified him from any reasonable chance at the presidency when he wasn’t 78 years old but appeared 90. He’s a 50 year slow motion train wreck who checks off all the boxes that the moral left once complained about Trump—he’s abused women, he’s thin skinned when questioned, he makes racially insensitive comments and the stench of corruption is all over him. That was before he began to show the effects of old age and senility. He also found the sweet spot where the line between meeting one’s obligations and having someone solve your problems gets murky— soaking those who make &400k+ (enemy!) and keeping Trump tax cuts for those making under $400k (victim!), buying off student debt for the highly educated. Nothing sells as quickly as free stuff. But, it worked. Should be an interesting 4 years, though I’d be surprised to see him make it 18 months. He’s done like dinner.

I didn’t intend to imply that you were inconsistent, I was just asking. I agree on pretty much everything here. My building can be rebuilt, my cars replaced whatever. I’m thinking I wouldn’t want a lone officer or two confronting a gang of a fifty scumbags looting my office, the numbers are not in their favor. Now, the swat team laying a bully beat down in a like-kind encounter when someone is trying to destroy the fruits of my labor, cool. Nice chat.

I sit him this Saturday at Defensive End. The risk outweighs the reward.

I'm not looking to argue, but why the softer approach to rioters in the street v the Capitol? I'm guessing you are categorizing destruction of property separate and apart from threats to people? I own an office building and while I'd hate to deal with the aftermath of rioters burning it to the ground, I'd not think lethal force necessary (all other things being equal), but I'd certainly hope the police would do their best to stop the destruction. As for this lady--I think I read yesterday she was a 14 year Air Force veteran, making her at least 32-34. It's on her. I disagree with you that Trump is to blame for her actions, though I would agree that his statements regarding violence and destruction of property should be every bit as forceful as t was over the summer. However, I also think when law enforcement officials and local governments from across the land issue stand down/let 'em riot orders and allow for the destruction of property to be the order of the day--as many 'leaders' did this summer, it normalizes behavior and gives the appearance there are no consequences to stupidity.

I'm not a young guy anymore, Frankish, and I've jumped to more than a few conclusions in my life and found out I was wrong later on. Nothing would surprise me here-from 100% lunatic Trump supporters to 100% antifa f***s to an unhealthy mix of agitators. I'd go with option 3, and have long believed far left/far right agitators are one in the same. As for the fatality, here's the dilemma for me. I see a young lady laying in a pool of blood, I think of lives wasted and lost. My natural instinct is to think of my own children and defer to 'she's a victim'. So, I have to step back, wait and see. For me, it's a learned behavior and I try not to be lead along the way by media reports because we frequently find the people reporting these stories are less concerned with facts, much more concerned with getting a story out quickly and in many cases, telling the story the way they want it to be told. On the other hand, I'm a pretty simple guy. I have one life to live, it's of extraordinary value to me, so I pretty much default to "If you come for me, I have to put you down". Over the summer, I saw videos of people on the roof of private homes, taunting them, screaming in windows, whatever. What do you do there? Sit tight, hoping folks won't burn you out? Leave the house, abandon and let the looters loot? I'm not a gun owner, yet, but kinda feel the same way I feel about the response here. You breach the window, I'm assuming you want me dead. In fact, when you're climbing all over my roof and you're not cleaning the gutters, I feel pretty strongly you don't have my best interest at heart. And, rot in hell on Saturday, but all the best to you and yours come Sunday.

I agree with this, and it actually points to the silliness of Biden's "shoot 'em in the gams" philosophy. An assault on the Capitol needs to be put down, hard. To be completely honest, it's not even so much about protecting the folks in there--though that's important, it's about sending a message that there are certain lines that cannot be crossed. One of the problems in modern society is the lines that should not be crossed are being replaced with a propensity to second guess decisions made in a split second to achieve a desired political outcome. See Jakob Blake, Chop zones, murders and looting on the streets.

I typically avoid you like the plague, I think you’re a really disturbed person. Your post a couple rows up is an example of that,and while I’m confident that Ann would suggest I simply ignore the troll, I feel compelled to say something. Your post is disgusting, not because of your rather peculiar fascination with presidential loads, but because of your lame attempt to objectify and marginalize a strong woman with hypersexualized commentary. On the one hand, its largely irrelevant because it’s fairly clear you manned up long after she moved on and she can’t respond. On the other, it is true potentially that when we allow good, decent and intelligent people like Ann to be spoken about in such terms, we’re perpetuating the problem. I’d simply leave it at this—in a debate or discussion about any issue of substance, 100 times out of 100 she destroys you and exposes you for the small minded man that you are. My hope for my political party moving forward is more Ann’s with seats at the table,and way less of this sort of garbage. Dig deep, do the right thing, delete that garbage and I’ll gladly delete this one.

That’s a series of unfortunate events. I’m always disappointed in bans, mostly because I figure if someone is offending me I just ignore them. It’s happened here fairly often of late, but you know. Styx. Stones. My feelings actually dates back to the earliest of bans here. I can’t provide feedback on the political side of the board. I may be the second most sane crazy person over there (Thank you sir for the compliment) but I ain’t no snitch. I think though you seem to want to position yourself as the victim when you complain over here, after swinging over there. I don’t know what happened last night, but whatevs. These are trying times, I just popped off Facebook as I saw some otherwise friendly folks swearing up a blue streak about everyone who disagrees with them being an @hole. I get enough stress in my normal life without having to worry about what some dope who thinks Facebook is THE place for the airing of grievances has to say about anything.