leh-nerd skin-erd

I don’t know how to make it make sense to you, Mup. I’ll try, but it seems you’re hunkered down on this one. Politicians, leaders in the house and senate, certain media members and the like lie. They view facts as pliable, manipulate details as they feel warranted and push on. I think this perspective is centrist, not particularly earth shattering, and shared by the majority of Americans. Lies hang with the truth everyday in DC politics. It’s the standard for any variety of reasons. You hold your nose when your people do it, I hold my nose when the people I support do it, and we move forward. If there is a deep, legitimate cover up it will reflect business as usual. But if there is a deep, legitimate coverup it didn’t start at the inauguration of DJT in January. Might I add, if you feel it now, and felt it then, why weren’t you pounding the table when Garland’s DOJ sat on their hands? That’s a rhetorical question and ties back in to holding noses when the favored people hold office. Let’s be real here indeed. The Trump admin botched the handling of all this, and Bondi has to answer for it. Heavy lies the crown. As far as a list goes (and assuming some credible list with names, dates and details ever existed) I’m sorry, but assuming that list wasn’t scrubbed, reviewed, manipulated, changed, deleted or otherwise altered during the Biden/Garland years makes little sense to me. It’s difficult for me to generate much outrage simply because some liberal leader had a bad case of Rip Van Winkle Syndrome for the past half-decade and suddenly found The Lord on 1/20/25. Why is it gone, if it ever existed? Easiest question of the day—Power corrupts. Victimizers victimize. Some people are above the law.

Come on. He was best friends with Ted Kennedy who flipped a car and left an intern to die. He chased every skirt he could chase. Not to mention there were at least 9 women he acknowledged fondling, and another who accused him of violent sexual assault. His legacy is f’d because he was a numbskull, but he was always a numbskull.

The last guy talks about his uncle being eaten by cannibals, driving imaginary trucks and how he beat the stuffin' out of someone named Medicare. Now, the new admin thinks Joseph is Jospeh. Great, just great.

Why didn’t you just say so? All is forgiven. Big picture, that’s a question for Tibs. He may have heard it at recess, I don’t really know.

Sure. See if you and Johnnie Walker can follow this one. Tibs introduced the notion that Bill Clinton and prominent Dems were involved with Epstein, and as a result were protected by prominent dems. I replied. Tibs wanted to focus only on Trump. I declined, in part because he introduced the notion that Bill Clinton and prominent Dems were potentially involved with Epstein. Big picture, paint by numbers or not.

I never understood why anyone beyond the victims were shielded to begin with. I ascribe to the theory that the top dogs in Washington co-exist under the theory of mutually assured destruction, and that in situations like this, the truth is quite pliable, important documentation has a way of disappearing, and we get what we get. Important to your question is the notion that there was a cover up, and if you feel that way, you certainly do not believe is started in January of this year after the inauguration.

You just mentioned the likelihood/possibility that Bill Clinton and other prominent Dems are on the list. Now you don’t want to talk about it? No, the right thing for me to do is help you see the big picture.

have you see this one? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-fergie-sauced-up-again-comment/

Do you ever not get sauced up before posting?

It’s the great equalizer, Mup. The Dems had control and….nothing. The Repubs have control and…nothing. Maybe it was always nothing. Maybe it was something and the files were scrubbed into nothing. Something for everyone!

If your theory is correct, they would have to be major players. That might well implicate Biden, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Schumer and so many more. Obama probably in play as well. Nah, they had access to the records and complete control of the narrative. Trump was under assault from the DOJ, NYS, and Georgia at a minimum. Leaking damaging information against him at that time likely would have ended any hope for the WH, and that was about survival for DJT. The most reasonably conclusion is he was not on any list.

Kindness and Apathy abound.

Again, agreed, but a 25’ rise in 45 minutes seems apocalyptic. I struggle with the planning that can be put in place to eliminate the threat of that sort of issue in that short a time frame, beyond “You can’t camp/live here.” Obviously, more will come out and maybe that will be incorrect, but after watching homes destroyed/rebuilt/destroyed in tornado prone areas like Tornado Alley, I think this kind of thing is going to happen. Very sad.

Wasting government resources in the cr@pper. Great, just great.

First, you would never be prez, your Mom was just trying to inspire. It’s what Moms do. Second, a prez on the list would not declare he would release the list, knowing he would be on it. That’s silly. Third, using your logic, fmr Prez Biden and his AG Merrick Garland are likely on the list, because there would be no reason not to release a list unless they were on it. To boot, fmr Prez Biden might be elderly and swell (now), but he’s an acknowledged fondler of multiple women and was credibly accused of sexual assault by another. On top of that, as a friend and confidante of Fmr prez WJC and his wife, fmr almost Prez HRC, it’s possible he was protecting the Dem brand and WJC and HRC were on the list based on past abhorrent behavior.

Agreed, but the reports are the heavy rainfall caused the river to rise 25’ in 45 minutes. Rainfall was clipping along at 2-4” per hour. That’s crazy.

He could probably just run that question through the AI program he used the first time. 🤔

I know you keep thinking you’re eventually going to make sense, but with each comment, you sound more like the caricature of a Republican boogeyman than the last. Elon’s commitment to paying his fair share has nothing to do with your commitment to paying yours. Clearly you feel you’re not completely shouldering your share of the burden, or you woukd not be willing to part with more. At the same time, you’re unwilling to contribute a penny more until the government compels you to, and/or Elon Musk is compelled to pay more. You’re like the love child of Donald Trump and Liz Warren.

Ok, come on. "Especially bananas and coffee"? What kind of freaky stuff do you city folk have going on that an increase in bananas and coffee causes such stress? Roundy to partygoers: "Ok people, listen up! Banana prices are through the roof, so a maximum of 5 per pairing!"

Nope, not on the terms as you've laid them out. There is literally no reason to wait until the government forces you to contribute when you can start today.

Glad to hear how you laid that out. This reflects the thinking of every compassionate, charitable conservative I know. Our money. Our choice. Our right. Where we take different paths is: I recognize that in addition to what I give, there is what I keep for things that are important to me. Retirement. Legacy. Children. Travel. Family. Once I earn the money, figure the charities I wish to donate to, and pay my taxes, I'm done with the dialogue. You, on the other hand, follow exactly the same path but then attempt to cloak yourself in righteousness by pointing the finger at everyone who should pay more, excluding yourself. It really just boils down to a lot of wealthy and really wealthy people talking a good game but never actually intending to participate. Nothing new here. Amen.

Bill Gates is an interesting subject. He could give away 95% of his fortune to the government and remain one of the richest people in the history of the world. He could give 10% directly to the government, today, and remain one of the wealthiest of some extraordinarily wealthy people on the planet at this time. Instead, he does things on his time, in his way, based on his discretion while icing the government completely out of the equation beyond what he is compelled to give. He gives both selflessly and selfishly. There's the trouble, and there are few other issues that don't quite square what he says with what he actually does. In that regard, yes, you're in that company. The problem is that you and he collectively refuse to do that which you demand that others do. You participate in the Annual Civic Club Car Wash and Cotillion and complain about people like you who don't want to do what people like you want everyone else to do. Anyway, you're correct that we've been through this before and that's just the nature of many liberals. Correct.

We'll get through it, Bill, hang in there. Btw I was just thinking about a pastry shoppe in Brugge. Delightful croissants and the service impeccable.

I'm suggesting that most people won't think about Canada today, tomorrow, next week, or next year. I don't say that with malice, or in an attempt to be dismissive. I feel like pretty much everyone knows this. It's not unlike the fact that most Americans in, say NYS, won't think about some of the other very cool places in our country. Council Bluffs, Iowa. Boise, Idaho. Midland, Texas. Sedona, Az. I don't think I'm wrong on this--but it's entirely possible that you were up last night worrying about the condition of the bridges in/around Saskatoon, but I think that would probably make you unique.

I thought that might have been the case. Thanks for the reply.