leh-nerd skin-erd

Das Rhino vas friggen righten. Nice call Cashmoney. So much to be intrigued about on this zany little interspot!

I don't understand this one 3D. 4mer is Crayola? I always figured he was one of the Walendas.

We recently began dealing with some issues with my mother-in-law. She’s an amazing woman who beat melanoma 35 years ago, among many other things she has faced in life. I’m sorry to hear you’re going through this. Being a primary caregiver for one of the most important people in your life is an unbelievable commitment and an act of love. Oddly I seem to recall the other poster sharing something about going through something similar. I guess for some, it leads to anger and bitterness. Hang in there.

I should have acknowledged I’m easily intrigued. Were you a juggler, operatic impresario, or are you in fact one of the famous tap dancing Hines brothers? As for the announcement, you’re probably correct.

I’m intrigued.

I voted for DJT last time and will again. I've voted conservative and party line for as long as I can remember. In this case, when Trump announced, I laughed and thought what a joke it was. For whatever it's worth, I thoroughly enjoyed the spectacle of "The Apprentice" early on, wanted Trump to have nothing to do with the Bills, and had no plan on voting for him at all. In fact--before the candidate field was finalized, I briefly considered a Biden vote if it came to it. Clinton is a skunk, that was never going to happen. The thought of another Bush in office made my skin crawl, though only after they checked his pulse to see if he was alive. Cruz was a maybe, Rubio a blech, and Trump was Trump.

I think Barr is a good guy, but it's hard to argue the point DJT is making. If there was nothing to investigate, and all the players walk away without any mud on their sneakers, it's been a gigantic waste of time. if there was wrongdoing (there was), and there are no consequences because people are protected by the swamp, we might as well come to grips with it. The way I see it, short of sanctioned assassinations of political rivals, there doesn't seem to be much left off the table as far as what is allowable. If that's the game, so be it, at least we know.

The challenge is that your actions don't match your words, Transpy. You complain about Trump, the disaster that he has been in offie, about allegations of harassment against women, and dusted off a 1970s era issue with a local housing office all while ignoring the unprecedented success he had in working with private industry to create jobs for all Americans. Then, you doubled down and dismissed the reality of historic-low unemployment for POC because apparently gap management pays the bills for ordinary folks. At the same time, you're beating the drum for Biden, a man accused of harassment and criminal conduct, who has made derogatory and hurtful remarks about people of color as recently as the last 10 days, and has a stunning record of legislative and economic abuse directed squarely at lower income people in general, and minorities specifically. Heck, even his running mate, who you profess to like, has said she believed that BIden sexually assaulted Tara Reade, but there is something in it for her if she sells out her ideals and the people she professes to champion. All you get out of sacrificing your values is that DR changes his avatar. My suggestion to you: Abstain come November. Rediscover that idealistic guy inside you and send a message to your party that people of color matter, that women matter, and that people are not disposable.

@transplantbillsfan --just wondering your thoughts on Harris' commentary on Tara Reade? You've dismissed her allegations outright, but like me, you're just a guy on the street. I always felt like your opinion was based on partisan politics, but this is a game changer. Kamala Harris is a Senator---with access to files, documents and details unavailable to the average guy on the street. She literally has the keys to the kingdom, and as a former prosecutor, likely looked at the allegations and Biden's past behavior with women and children through the lens of her past experience. She never said Biden reminded her of an over-affectionate step-uncle, or that he was the victim of a scurrilous attack. She actually said she believed TR, which means she believed Joe Biden guilty of a vicious sexual assault. It's a real conundrum, isn't it Playa?

Because of the ties to the Nazzys and WW2, obviously.

I am the first to admit I'm not one to dive deep into data, charts, projections and analysis. I appreciate you being willing to do so, and to some extent, @shoshin and certainly others do as well. I'm a behavior and modeling guy. That's not to say I'm a model, though with the fashion trend being all about the mask these days, maybe I could. My mother-in-law always said I wear clothes nicely. I like to look at what's said, what's suggested, what the experts say and then what follows. In this case, I read it as a journalist cherry picking which data is relevant, deciding which data and public commentary should be withheld from the public and pushing forth with an agenda. I've seen it far too often to accept this sort of drivel at face value. I just read a story about NH Gov setting out a mandate on the Laconia motorcycle rally. He is mandating wearing masks for all attendees when in gatherings of 100 or more. Says Sturgis left him concerned. At the same time, the mandate does not apply to other groups and settings, which to me, makes little sense. Personally, I don't see the magic at 100 v 50 v 25 or 10, but whatever. If the magic number is 100, why not just apply equally across the board?

It’s difficult to take thus article seriously without perspective on the widely held belief that non-COVID deaths are counted as COVID, the financial incentives to count deaths as COVID, and a highly placed member of the national team estimating the numbers are inflated by upwards of 25%.

A few years ago, I happened to be at the dock in the south of France, about to take my 2002 Bowrider out when I saw Geff, Barrack, Michelle, Oprah and Bruuuuuuuuuce with his wife. Geff said “Hey, my dingy is bigger than your whole boat!”. We all laughed, damn, he was right. The cool part was when I asked if I could head out with them, and of course, they were like “Yeah bro!”. We spent the afternoon talking about equality—-btw Geff’s chef makes an amazing coq au vin—and man made climate change. I asked about the gas mileage on the boat—-“Boat!” they all laughed. Geff assured me the gas mileage was really good for a 450’ long yacht made from recycled bottle caps, and Bruce made a joke about taking it up New Jersey and running it “down by The River near his Hometown, his Hometown”. Anywar, the funniest part was when I asked where Bill and Hill, and Joe and Dr. Jill Biden were. Oprah remarked “Trust me no one wants to see Hillary in a bah-KEEEEEEEEN-eeee!”. Turns out Biden had been invited but he thought the south of France was in North Dakota. I just appreciated the invite. Anyway

There was a time an old white fella with a penchant for grabbing goodies not belong to himself could get into trouble for suggesting he was on the hunt for a young JamIndian lady to work under him. Now, it's the Democrat platform.

Well, I have to credit the man, he gave it the good old college try. The formatting was a bit difficult to follow but I think I pieced it together. In summary, Trump colluded with Russia because there was no evidence of collusion and the SC never moved forward with exoneration even though the office would never exonerate anyone. And obviously, because nothing was found, messages were maybe encrypted or people lied, but most importantly the fact that nothing was found is clear evidence that something should have been. Given that line of reasoning, we need to immediate move to investigate Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkle and both parents from the old "Leave it to Beaver" show--Hugh Beaumont and Barbara Billingsley. There is no evidence against those people, either, which drops 'em right in the thick of it.

I've never understood this fascination that some men have in pitting two women against each other. It's demean---ah, who am i kidding.

I'd really love to read it. In all my worldly travels, I've had one response to the very simple question: "How did they get it all so wrong?". That response was from our own Doc Brown, and while I disagreed it was nice to get something back other then . Transpy tends to default to the emotional, imo. I think he's a thoughtful guy, and if I had one observation, it's that he defaults to the 'emotional' v the logical. His foray into the weatherman fallacy makes some sense at face value, but simply must be discarded when considering the totality of the information available and the time frame over which the weatherman would have had to been wrong. When does it storm and the weather rage for 945 days straight? I feel like there is a wall between the emotional (Transpy) and the logical (LS), and I say in all sincerity: Mr. @transplantbillsfan-Gorbachev, tear down that wall! Btw, just found a few emojis of the type that @Foxxmade famous here. Where the %$#@ has that small-to-medium sized ominvorous mammalia been of late?

Please, don't make me block you for posting stupid &^%$ like this. The same argument can be made for every political campaign ever. Kamala Harris dishes it out, she can handle herself. She's a VP candidate espousing the same hateful rhetoric as everyone else. I'm willing to listen to non-stupid ^%$#, hoping to learn something new from someone who holds a different point of view.

It's a fool's game to pretend that Obama was not at the helm of the country during the financial crisis, and that it was a difficult time to be president. While criticism of some of his policy decisions is fair, it seems silly to rehash the choices he made and the winners and losers he created. Likewise, it's foolish to pretend that Donald Trump's policy decisions, tax initiatives, focus on deregulation, changes to capital gain rates and the like was not a major part of the economic explosion that followed. There are CEOs who have said as much, but more importantly, the repatriation of capital and substantially more business-friendly environment sparked the fire that followed. Don't be foolish, Transpy, you can hate and despise Trump and still acknowledge his role in the economic explosion that followed after 8 years of insufferable doom and gloom under O'Biden. The word 'malaise' is appropriate to describe the world under that particular regime. Then again, maybe Obama had it planned out where he deftly hand-selected his successor as a dodge to set up the greatest upset in American political history so that DJT could totally &^%$ over his initiatives and policy decisions so that it was one long and winding road from Barry to Don. Your gap analogy is a macro issue, the things elites speak of, the type of language used by those firmly entrenched in a job that pays well (or better), that will not be impacted by any policy decisions that seeks to close the gap, and who generally utter it while snacking on filet mignon flavored tofu and drinking a delightful red from Sonoma. Job opportunities and employment are a micro issue, in that cold hard cash in hand is what allows people to feed themselves. Holding your nose at sound economic opportunities for our citizens because it happened under the wrong guy's watch is sad, though... It is interesting. The 'gap' that exists would be a systemic issue, correct? Why would someone like you--with a great job and gold-standard benefits that allowed you to skate across the COVID rink unscathed--chose to run toward the very type of politician that has been in the driver seat of the system for nearly 5 decades? The system is broken, you say, so let's load up with more system? Your view of progressive politics seems more and more like an attempt to change the world so long as your own bubble is not impacted. Finally, a word about wage inequity. I was speaking with my daughter about the male/female wage gap a few years back, purported to be something like .75 cents on the dollar women to men. This was back when people identified as men and women, or at least did so when it was politically expedient and divisive. We dove into one of the oft-cited surveys on that issue, and what we found was interesting. When doing the calculations, certain assumptions were made. The author's of the survey looked at hourly wage, and on the side of the womenfolk, made some assumptions and adjusted as follows: Women are traditionally the main provider of child care services, so that was factored into the hourly rate; Women are traditionally responsible for domestic household duties (cleaning, cooking etc), and that was factored into the hourly rate; Women traditionally have the children in the family, and the time our of the office post-childbirth was factored into the hourly rate*; Women traditionally care for elderly parents and special needs children, and this was factored into the hourly rate; In short, that particular survey assumed that women on average were 'working' 12-14 hour days and men only 8. So, a man making $55,000 for job A, and a woman holding the exact same job at $55,000, revealed a stunning disparity in wage based on the 6 extra hours that had nothing at all to do with wage and employment. My assumption was that the authors of the survey knew the results were the most important issue, and that well-intentioned people would run with the ".75c on the dollar!" and not look much deeper than that. Why? Because it works every time. Now go take on the day. *Thankfully, we're entering into a brave new world where child birth will not be limited to a "Women only" club. Soon, many men, thousands maybe, will be in hospitals and bathtubs across the country experiencing the joy of childbirth. #progress Where was that gem? I feel like I read all of @transplantbillsfan posts and must have missed it.

You’re getting turned around here. I never suggested the tweet bothered me—my expectations of politicians are fairly low so I tend not to get worked up by things like this. I believe I’ve stated my point on her tweet, but I’ll try one more time. The fact pattern as alleged by Smollette was very unusual, and given that she definitively described it as “an attempt at a modern day lynching” targeting him as a person of color and discussing his sexuality, it seems to me she knew more than what was publicly available on the date and time in question. I’d hazard a guess that law enforcement knew rather quickly there were holes in the story and that it was likely fabricated, I’d assume a seasoned prosecutor would have cause to be concerned as well. Since she chose to push onward,it’s fair to point out she looks irresponsible when the truth came out. Additionally, though not relevant to the point I originally made, Harris had an exceptional opportunity to clean up the mess she made once the truth was revealed. So, paragraph one of the tweet is perfectly understandable. Paragraph two, given what she appears to have known and her professional background was where she gets ahead of the story, seems irresponsible to me. Since you mentioned Donald Trump,well, his tweets, words and actions are dissected daily, as they should be. They are the frequent target of criticism, and I’m unsure if your lobbying for a different standard for Harris or not, I try to stay away from twitter and tweets in general, mostly because most are ugly and I choose to seek out activity that is not. Finally, as to being “bothered”. Harris’ tweet about Smollette can be debated, I’ll acknowledge I could be wrong and she was spot on in temperament, tone and verbiage. Perhaps there was no political calculus at all to her post. However, a couple of examples of things that bothered me: -Trump’s initial tweet about Obama wire tapping Trump Towers. I can recall where I was when I heard that, and my response was “You can’t say that, it’s a horrible thing to say about Obama without proof” or something similar. Of course, that was before the details of the investigation came out and we discovered the level of complicity of Obama et al. -Harris’ treatment of Brett Kavanaugh. I thought she was horrific, manipulative and condescending, and my only hope was that one day she had a loved one treated as such in a public forum. Then, of course, I realized that that solves nothing, and hoping for a ***** chrarcter assassination for an innocent person is really a Harris thing to do, and I don’t want to live like that.

And if Harris was his hairstylist at Sportsclips, his waitress at Hooters, or his former biology professor at university, her comments made perfect sense. But she wasn’t any of those things, she is one of the most powerful people in the world with access to everyone connected with the investigation. The story was implausible, certainly unusual and I’d think common sense and professional decorum would have one keep the messaging about love and support. Instead, she chose to rush in, as fools do, and used very specific language which turned out to be grossly irresponsible. I note there is some speculation about whether or now she played a more sinister role in the incident, but I’ll leave it she was grossly irresponsible and made herself look foolish. It happens.

Hmm, I'd normally agree with you on this sort of thing. However, she's a former prosecutor with a tremendous amount of experience dealing with crime. The fact pattern as alleged was questionable at best, preposterous at worst. She jumped immediately to conclusions, she characterized and stated emphatically what had occurred and ended up looking like a fool. When you factor in that she had access to the folks that were investigating the alleged crime and fact pattern, she was either part of the problem or at a minimum, duped by the Hollywood equivalent of a carnival barker.

Your batting average is .075. I gave you credit for acknowledging the attempted political assassination of Brett Kavanaugh, though I have to rethink that because you seem to be quite fond of Kamala Harris. I also gave you credit for log-in management and calling Joe Biden as your candidate. Other than that, you are wrong on most issues. If I'm understanding you correctly, the loathsome DJT (who, prior to the virus, was credited with creating incredible opportunities for all Americans, but most notably people of color as unemployment tumbled to historic lows) has to be replaced, even if that means voting for a guy with a long history of being on the wrong side of legislation involving racial equality. So, replace the guy who removed barriers to success and replace with the old democrat who has had 50 years to create meaningful reform and has failed to do so. In summary--it could be argued that you are voting for the old guard and status quo, as opposed to greater opportunity for people of color. What's in that for you?

I really don't even care who holds the top spot. I'm a giver.

Jiminy Crickets Transpy, you've had a b0ner for Biden for as long as I can remember, and I can provide a clip from last week where he works his Biden magic! If you're comfortable voting for Joe Biden, you must be devastated that Robert Byrd never got his chance.