leh-nerd skin-erd

Now you went and perved it up! I rarely can work clean in my real life so I test drive being classy here.

It’s interesting and I see a parallel between RBG and Bill Clinton. Both extremely intelligent and capable people, both perhaps a bit on the narcissistic side (one more than the other obviously), but in the end, both “undone” by circumstances that were fairly easy to predict and project. One involved exposing his throat to his enemies on one of the worst kept secrets in politics, the other by over managing the curves that life inevitably throws at us all. Simple human failings.

Fitz...have you ever heard of......Pilates?

Your main concern for the Rs is the “bad look” after Russia and Kavanaugh? If that is what it looks like when we’re all looking good together I say pass. There is no precedent from 2016. The situation is similar only in that a seat is available because a justice died. A bad look, imo, is the suggestion that RBG kept her thoughts on a president replacing her private, shared them with a select few as she spent her final hours reflecting on her life. Certainly she would know a sitting president was under no obligation to act as she saw fit, surely she knew the country is in the midst of serious and significant societal unrest, and surely she would know her dying words would be used as a rallying cry for those intent on destruction. She was 87 years old and a very skilled writer coming to the end of a fight that lasted several years...,she could not pen an op ed for the NYT outlining her thoughts? It seems clear to me that RGB was intent on serving as a justice for the duration of her life, knowing all the obligation and rules that applied as she made that decision, and a huge part of that was that upon death, her seat opened up. She chose to remain all throughout the Obama years, she chose to remain as she battled setback upon setback, and there is nothing written or published that suggests she expected anything other than to see her commitment through to the end. We should respect her enough to honor the process. It only looks bad to the oppostion, and the opposition has shown time and again their contempt for who the President is, what his role is, and for 60,000,000 Americans who support him. Time to move on from this bs Sally Field “You really like me!” garbage.

The Italians tend to prefer their women be Rubenesque, if I may be so bold. And if I may generalize.

I believe he is suggesting that ABC has personally waged a war on the poor, thus making her an “a hole”, and that he really wants his type of a hole in her place. We can gloss over the fact that irrespective of the obvious challenges one encounters when speaking about the Catholic Church and it’s hierarchy, the number of good, decent and hard working Catholics throughout history that have dug deep into their own pocket to help those less fortunate is incalculable.

These words strung together mean nothing tangible, and the sentiment I think you are trying to convey flies in direct contrast to the disrespectful rhetoric you used to characterize ABC earlier. Hate is hate, you just advocate hating a different target than someone else.

But based on your comments above, it sounds to me like you just want your own brand of bigot on the court. Same old same old.

She would pray to her God. What would make her a “fanatic” and why the characterization? By all accounts a devoted jurist, decent human being and excellent mother to her children. We would be fortunate to have another strong woman on the SC to help shepherd the country further along during this very contentious period in our history. Ginsberg’s relationship with Judaism certainly impacted who she was as a jurist, and think of how different the country would be if your sort of religious bigotry prevented her from taking her place in history.

Plus we’re almost certain to be within a half-dozen spots of NE in the power rankings tomorrow!

We have plenty to gain, however and we have a sitting President willing to move forward. We have no idea what the future holds for any of the justices, and what the SC might look like post Biden. I really see no issue at all moving forward. Hell it might even cost the Rs the election but you play the hand you’re dealt. Thanks for the reply—I’ll consider that as well.

It’s clear that RBG inspired you, and I think following in her footsteps is admirable. She’s one of the great Americans from an “impact people’s life” perspective. This makes you a good person for my question. Her legacy will be vast and far-reaching. However, I have to question her apparent decision to stay on the bench and attempt to wait the election out. I’ll withdraw this comment if it turns out she was on the mend and died rather suddenly and unexpectedly. Assuming she knew the end was coming for some time, she was an acting SC justice while under tremendous pain and while battling a horrible illness. That typically involves strong medication and long periods of feeling well less than 100%. At the same time, the country is reeling from protests run amok, with citizens clashing in the street, people being murdered and police officers the victims of violent attacks. I can understand liberal frustration that she did not retire from the bench when BO was in office, or sooner. Her end game, as evidenced by her statement about waiting until after the election to nominate her successor, seems to have been to make it until November at a minimum. I think she disregarded what may have been best for the country as it stands today with an eye toward the larger picture of the SC. Certainly she would know the impact of her passing at any point within the past few months, how the very necessary need to replace her would fire up the crazies on both sides. My question(s)...was her decision to hold on purely political, was her statement about waiting on her successor unnecessarily incendiary and finally, why on earth would any president pass up the opportunity to nominate their choice for justice regardless of timing? DJT was elected for a reason, and the SC was a big part of that reason. Thanks—and sorry for the loss of your icon. She lived an honorable life and was tough as nails, you chose wisely though she was not my cup of tea.

Why do you see it this way, Derek?

I recall a fight in the cafeteria in HS. Two guys on the football team squared off, bigger dudes and it amounted to much more of a cartoonish slap fight than anything else. They may have been buddies who got into a spat, can’t recall but I never realized in 1977 I was seeing the future play out before me. Socially distanced fighting IS the future.

We tease because we love?

4 years ago I agree. After the Russia character assassination plot and the attempt to eviscerate Brett Kavanaugh, I firmly believe you roll over whomever stands in the way within the framework of our legal system. If hearts and minds have not been earned after the left attempted to unseat the President elected on behalf of 60,000,000 Americans, the SC isn’t going to matter much one way or the other. You can’t afford to play nice with people bent on your destruction.

Jesus, it took 10 google searches to find this tired old group of pseudo-dem operatives. It looks to me like they came from the swamp, thrived in the swamp, and really are searching for a return to swamp normalcy. It will be cool seeing das Liberals pumping up this group who worked for the war criminal Bush the younger. F&^% em. The Republican Political Alliance for Integrity and Reform (REPAIR) is a group of former senior U.S. government officials and conservatives—including from the Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, and Trump administrations—who are committed to advancing a more hopeful vision of America’s future. The Alliance brings together thought leaders and stakeholders to focus on a return to principles-based governing in the post-Trump era. REPAIR also cultivates and promotes diverse viewpoints across the conservative spectrum on issues ranging from national security and foreign policy to social unrest and democratic institutions.

I did, but explained the context when you brought it your attention. I know context is important to you, mostly because you use that term frequently, and I wanted things to make sure I was clear. Had I known of your tendency to gloss over a response once names of some sort were used, I may well have approached my response differently. Alas, we cannot turn back the hands of time. Unless, of course, one makes spurious allegations against people when there is something to be gained by it. In that case, time is irrelevant, unless, of course, the allegation is against certain entrenched and woke politicians. When that occurs, time is no longer irrelevant, the alleged victim becomes irrelevant.

I would suggest putting 80% of your money in the First City Wide Bank of Change. Keep the other 20% liquid in case it rains. https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/first-citywide-change-bank/n9701 Any thoughts on my prior question?

A while back, a pundit (I think) dropped a mysterious "13 days" line on the world. Around the same time, perpetual "stay tuned" politician Lindsay Graham implied something big was coming in the short term. Now, the dems and this pre-emptive move which seems substantial. I see it less as fear, more of 'let's throw more sh*t against the wall to distract the people'. We all get worked up when people get served a subpoena, but it really doesn't seem to matter all that much in the big picture. I'm admittedly one of the defeatist conservatives mentioned upthread in @BillsFanNC post. Still, a glimmer of hope exists.

It's a quote SpongeBob Squarepants. I think he actually said "Elaborate, vile fiend.". It's one of my all-time favorite kid's shows as it had some stuff for dear old dad as well. I don't think you're vile. No hoax. But, still, elaborate, kind sir.

my old friend @Bob in Mich made the case that Trumps lies were way more liarly than other politician's lie lies. It was funny then and funny now. It went like this: Me: Nu'uh. BiM: Uh, yuh. Me: Don't think so. BiM: Fa sho. Me: Get over yourself. BiM: No, you get over YOURself! I think we both felt better after the airing of grievances.

Are we discussing the complaint, the various reasons she has made the allegation, the inherent complexities of discussing an allegation about something that may/may not have taken place 20+ years ago, or the evangelical/conservative support for DJT in light of unsubstantiated allegations from two decades ago? Advise, vile fiend.

The answer to over-regulation is always new regulation?