leh-nerd skin-erd

Well good news for Skip--Baker's dance card is free all next weekend.

When you got heartburn, indigestion, upset stomach, di-ah-rhee-UHH, it’s been said Pepto is the go-to. Hang in there!!

This was a compelling read to be sure. It read like a really good screen play. "Hunkered down." "Deeply wounded.". Mysterious aides working close enough to touch him as he watches tv, concerned enough to speak to the media, not concerned enough to resign, though oddly not concerned at all that they would be easily identifiable as they were in the room as he was 'angry and isolated'. Interestingly, the authors of this short story briefly mentioned the unlikelihood of a senate impeachment in the currently R lead senate, which seems really at odds with the mysterious and unnamed sources who suggested Cocaine Mitch was going to support the impeachment and push forward after the house ran their 45 minute investigation. Of course, like so many mysterious and highly placed sources, it was complete bullsh&t. I know, I know. You've seen enough of his public persona to convince you there are highly placed aides who bring DJT coffee that reveal his loss of his 'cherished Twitter megaphone". It makes all the sense in the world and the imagery clicks with the right side of your brain where emotions like rage and disgust reside. It works because you let it. It's hard to push back--the imagery of a confused Biden wandering around the White House in soiled pajamas groping the housekeeper in full David Coppa-feel mode works as well, or will when it starts to come out in a few months. You should try though. It's the perfect time to do it--DJT will be gone, and while the multiple unnamed source game will continue--after all, it worked--the most he'll be able to do is lob shots at Biden and Harris as the opposition leader. I still hold out hope that he releases or speaks about some of the secrets of admins past, particularly about Biden. That would be cool, and would bypasss the whole 'someone said someone saw that someone heard' garbage that makes up 'reporting'.

We’ve been over many of these subjects before, and if this was a “Look at me, I’m Transplant Bills Fan Dammit!” thread, you would be empowered to share your fascinating thoughts on Obama laying up for DJT, foot fetish management, the passing of the SC torch from RBG to ACB and the like. This is not that, this is a Common Ground thread. Out of respect for the original intent @Tenhigh and the topic, I’ll push forward and express that while I found this note to be presumptuous and confrontational, I appreciate you generally. By the way—this is type of post I was referring to when we discussed you feigning innocence when complaining about treatment on the other board. It reminds me a bit of the villain in professional wrestling, ripping an eye gouge when the ref is distracted and playing to the crowd as the victim of scurrilous allegations thereafter. Oh, and speaking of that sort of theater, God Bless Dominic Denucci who turns 89 on 1/23! In a sign of times long gone, his nemesis Waldo Von Erich infamously had this exchange at some point in the early 1970s. It likely happened after he took a shiv from his tights and opened a cut over our hero’s eye and win the match: WVE: Vaht do you get when you cross an Eetalyan wit an ape? Announcer: I don’t know. WVE: You get a ruhtarted ape! Watching the grainy footage on a black and white television, in a small town near 🦬, with my brothers around it simply compelled us to scrap even more than usual. My mother was constantly trying to forbid us from watching that stuff because mayhem usually ensued, but we snuck it in when we could. Have a great day. PS: Shame on you @Bob in Mich! Thumbs up on the incendiary post sent by Tranpsy?!! I'm enraged---please send me your home address so I can add and then immediately remove you from my Skin-erd Holiday Newsletter! You sir shall not hear that the youngest of my brood made Dean's List yet again. You sir shall not hear that we do not have grandbabies yet but here's hoping the New Year blesses us as such! You sir shall not know that my waistline has expanded while my hairline recedes! You sir shall not see my family picture, each of us angling like Rob Redford in "A River Runs Through It" to show our best side (I have none, but like the Little Engine That Could, I keep pushing forward anyway!). And you sir shall be the one that loses out---in spite of my limited aesthetic contribution and cantankerous personality, my wife and children are lovely!

Hats off? Hats. Heads. Head hunting. Bountygate. Greg Williams. See, on the surface, what sounds like a young, gifted professional athlete being respectful and effusive with his praise of another athlete often leads directly back to Greg Williams. I'm actually embarrassed I have to explain it to you people.

Hats off?? Wtf does that even mean!??!!! This is bulletin board material if I’ve ever seen it.

First, what you think is credible may not reach be credible to me in the least. I question everything, but certainly question reports that come less than 10 days after something as politically volatile as an assault on the Capitol. There are many, many cases where credible sources turn out to not be credible at all. There is also a massive push for political gain that has little to do with the best interest and unity of the country. To answer your question, if members of congress assisted in the planning and/or execution of the assault, they should be investigated and charged with the crime commensurate with their action. The question I asked the other poster involved me trying to understand his perspective that seemed to imply people should be treated similar to the outcome for McVeigh. When I asked 'which people' he seemed to imply should be executed, I guess I was thinking of different categories of crime or action. In the extreme, while I'm not a proponent of the death penalty, I can understand the individuals responsible for the death of the law enforcement officer being charged as such, but on the other side I'm not so sure the driver of a bus or protestor who didn't enter the Capitol should be charged with anything. Finally, on some level, I understand his outrage and desire for street justice. I felt that way many, many times during the Russia investigation and the attempt to unseat DJT then. I was just trying to understand where he was coming from.

Is this directed at anyone in particular?

In fairness though, they only backed into that record by winning those games. Had they not won some they would have more losses. I’m not even going to argue about it. Huh. That sure looks different than it sounds in my head.

Free speech would be my guess.

It'll be interesting to see that go through the court system, and maybe hear some of the tasty revelations about ***** presidents get away with before retreating to a life of luxury in Martha's Vineyard, Chappaqua, or Texas. You have to wonder about all the things said, done, and ordered by a prez that don't result in this sort of thing. Imagine--Mary Cheney, daughter of the War-for-Oil strongman Dick Cheney, supports impeachment without so much of a hint of irony, nor a question about her family ties. Carrying water for the dems, Trump making remarks inspires her to jump on board, yet her old man sending American soldiers to die by the thousands in search of profits doesn't even register on the dem naughty list. Totally cool, no worries, no pension issues, just business as usual.

Which people?

Timothy McVeigh was executed. It less of a slap on the wrist, more of toxic cocktail that caused his bodily functions to cease. You probably knew this at one time? Common ground here, though there are those who think that McVeigh's execution was an afront to humanity and civility.

Not everyone wants to find common ground, Ten. We can all agree on that as well.

We’re probably on opposite sides here, but criss cross IS confusing. He’s either not or not not supporting impeachment. Rest assured we’ll both likely lose.

Not only that, but Mitch thinks that by (allegedly ) not publicly supporting the (alleged) impeachment while pushing forward with the (actual) impeachment, he saves the republican party. Criss Cross Bobby, Criss frigging cross.

I think we agree on the harshness of the response. I saw a lady bleed out from a neck wound, I’ve seen stories of rioters being rounded up from various places across the country, and I see the label “domestic terrorism” bandied about fairly often. I don’t think these people are getting the “set em free” deal that seems pretty popular these days when imagery or children of a lesser god are involved. Dead seems significant to me.

We’ll have to disagree on some of that, at least insofar as i think you are drawing false comparisons. I think when rioters are allowed and/or encouraged to destroy or “occupy”, or when orders are given to stand down for extended periods of time, it contributes to a feeling of chaotic anarchy for many people. It becomes normalized. I’m not an anarchist, never was, so they could set up Chop zones in every major city from here to Philadelphia and you’re not going to find me storming the Capitol and climbing through smashed out windows. They could burn down police stations, destroy Starbucks and burn down a shopping mall and it’s not going to compel me to do what those a##holes did in either place. I’m pro law and order, pro mind my business, pro people. However, when anarchy reigns supreme, anarchy follows. I’d certainly suggest peaceful protestors protesting peacefully have zero/nothing/nada/zilch in common Capitol rioters, but the anarchists over the summer are opposite sides of the same coin.

We agree that insurrection and storming the Capitol are crimes against the country. The perpertrators should be dealt with harshly, and as I see individuals arrested daily, I think that is occurring. You have your thoughts on Trump, I have mine. The common ground can be the recognition that we disagree, or we can forgo the common ground entirely and agree that’s for the best.

Noted. The one guy always thinks the other other guy is telling a lie. Besides, are you suggesting that people should not be allowed to protest peacefully simply because you don’t support Stop the Steal?

I waded slowly for a reason--this is a common ground thread. Whether we agree or not, the reality is that others are not so blessed, and the point is that they see this last year as an assault on this nebulous concept of freedom. When you factor in that many people are cynical about what it exactly means to defeat the virus, it's a recipe for misunderstanding and passionate disagreement. We can agree that there are many, many things the government made mistakes on with respect to COVID. On my best day, I recognize the absolutely massive challenge with trying to get all these moving parts figured out. On my worst, I feel much differently about all the people pulling the strings. Finally, I agree on your last point--the assault on freedom crowd (left, right or middle) has been around a long time. Pretty much across the board, there are certainly reasons for each segment to believe they are the victim.

Agree on this, though the state(s) government often suffer from the same bloat and overreach as the feds. Agreed. I'm with you mostly here. As a business owner myself I can't imagine treating any customer poorly, or denying service to someone in need of my assistance. I struggle when we get to issues like mandatory contraceptive coverage as in the Little Sisters of the Poor case. Agreed. Agred. Agreed. Agreed. Protest to vote, stop the steal, March to End Racism...all good. Violence, breeching the Capitol, destruction of personal property, all sides of the same coin. So on this one, I am wading in slowly. My humble suggestion on this point is that many, many folks upset or willing to peacefully protest may no longer have jobs to go to, and I've said all along that this issue divides us--it's incredibly easy, relatively speaking, to weather the COVID storm when you get paid. People can hunker down perpetually when they can pay their bills, meet their obligations and wait things out. We have millions of citizens in that category, including every elected official protected by law enforcement last week. Unfortunately, we have tens of millions of people not in this position nearly a year into the crisis. How long would you be willing to lock down if you had nothing? How long would you have been willing to lock down if you had nothing, you were 35 years old and the primary breadwinner for your spouse and family?

Well, thanks for the clarification on the white supremacy thing--it's awesome that you don't think your old pal Len and his folks aren't card carrying Klansmen. If it matters, I want you to know I don't think you were out burning police stations and assaulting people in the streets this summer. That said--thanks for the reply. I asked, you answered and I appreciate it. I'll do my best to summarize the most common reason(s) the many folks I know supported Trump initially, and why he gained such incredible momentum before COVID devastated the world. I'm not going to bore you with details, I'm not all that interested in back and forth about it was all Barrack and Biden, I'm just telling you what I know. Many, many Trump voters in 2016 were reluctant at best. Most republican politicians were not Trump supporters when he was elected. He was pretty much out there on an island, and the 95% figure came later on as he delivered on his promises. The outsider effect was an important consideration and certainly played a factor in him getting elected. The reality is that many mainstream R voters had gotten tired of lip service from established politicians, and those who becamse known as "Never Trumpers". Trump's personna played a part in that, especially on the heels of two horribly bad R candidates in the 135 year old John McCain, and Mitt Romney who looked like he could be president in a movie. Trump's default response was "F Y", and it was music to our ears especially after Gentleman Mitt got his ass handed to him because he was born without a *****. The main reasons imo, apologies to Virg, but in no particular order: 1. Obiden represented apologies, globalism, big government as the savior, and a thumb in the eye of law enforcement. Trump represented American exceptionalism, the notion that our country carried far too much of the internationalism burden for far too long, and the inherent desire to be proud of who we are. 2. A commitment to supporting job creation for all Americans. We believed he was better positioned to create an atmosphere that was pro-growth. Maybe that ties into the outsider thing, maybe that's because he was a business owner dealing with often generous regulation that snuffs jobs as they sleep, or maybe it was just some hope to drag us out of the malaise of the Obama years. One of the fundamental reasons 95% of the R population supported the guy is that we like to work, and we damn sure like to eat. 3. Tax policy. Paying tax is a patriotic duty, excessive taxation is not. Most R voters I know believe in keeping more of what they earn, and finding the delicate balance between funding programs and getting hammered into submission, and believe DJT did very well in this regard. 4. Border security--most prominent candidates have waxed nationalistically about the souther border for decades, yet precious little has been done about it. I believe there is no plan to accomplish anything at all, and absent Trump, the Schumers and McConnells of the world would have postured about disagreement and gone on with business as usual. Trump appeared committed to try and deal with it. Speaking only from my perspective, I've noted the extraordinary number or times 'the media' or other politicians have tried to hang the missteps of other admins on Trump, and how his attempts at establishing orderly control at the border were widely mocked. That doesn't surprise most R voters who came to support him in this regard. 5. Judges. You're correct about McConnell's commitment to appointing judges, that was a very important part of the Trump admin and widely supported. The good fortune, politically speaking, of having RBG die prior to the election cannot be understated. She was, and is a towering figure in the American political landscape, an amazing women of substance but in the end, her legacy is impacted by hubris. We'll see how that helps/hurts the R voter as time goes on. As for the integrity of the Senate, please, spare me. From here out, it will be interesting to see what President Elect Groper, Chuck and Nancy push forward with.

What beef put you in the box, Holmes? Did ya get buzzed in the yard?