leh-nerd skin-erd

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.

Some days I realize I'm not all that deep. I want Tulsi Gabbard to be President. I'd support Kristi Noem for VP too. Or, vice versa. Honestly they could both be president at the same time. Screw the wall.

I'm starting to wonder. She'll be president in 12 months, has bypassed the entire bully beatdown and drudgery of the election run up. She wouldn't do it if she was his sub for 4 years...but. .

Michele Hussein Obama. Book it.

This clip reveals really what a poser Biden has always been. He certainly spoke as if he expected no one to question him, and he was so condescending as he spoke about how smart he was, you almost wanted to knock the smile off his face. But, he's a hero to the left and THE only guy for President for so many like @transplantbillsfan and @Tiberius. They can't get enough of the guy.

She's been in congress for 3 years, and were she still an officer, would be shouted at, spat upon, had bricks thrown at her and fireworks shot at her face by your people. Assuming she hasn't lost her ethical center, I'm thinking she might be an interesting choice to help lead the narrative on reform. At one point, she saw the need to defend the police from criticism in hostile and dangerous situations, though that may not fly anymore. When you think of it, she could be perceived as selling out by police, and as selling out by partnering with a guy with as much racial baggage as Joe Biden. From police officer to congressperson to VP for a guy widely acknowledged as very unlikely to complete his term--thus President in 4-8 years. Wow.

Well, he knows her intimately.

But the rioting and lawlessness clearly contributed to the COVID crisis. I think the city of Seattle needs to figure this out on their own. It'll be empowering.

One thing for certain, we'll know last week.

We agree on this--Biden (when he's coherent) truly believes in his vision. He's show no growth at all on racist rhetoric, on groping and fondling and the like, and 1975 Biden made the same type of incendiary and condescending comments about people of color as does Biden 2020. That happens because people like you continue to align behind him., driven forward to vote for a guy who should have been out of a job 3 decades ago. That has nothing to do with Donald Trump, he's been a thorn for only the past 3 or 4 years. Suggesting that you're simply enabling no longer makes any sense. Your personal brand of intolerance and keeping people under the boot of the government makes it all the troubling. It's insidious.

I did no such thing, I simply commented about the nature of humans in regards to a mini-op-ed you posted about silliness and the like. If you perceive that as a 'whatabout Biden' that's your limitation, not mine. I also would concur that while your characterizations about people you disagree with added little to a thread entitled "The next pandemic...", the fact is that you opined and I replied. Finally, if we're really being sincere, your unsubstantiated and purely anecdotal comments about having clients in Sweden (pop: 10,000,000+) add little to the dialogue, unless of course your Swedish clients total in the millions. Taking it one step further if, for example, a poster cited a similar experience and we later discovered they sold school supplies to teachers across the country, their experience certainly would not be indicative of what might be happening in other sectors of the economy.

No sir--shame on you. You're preparing to vote for a 1970s Biden, who really represented 1950s America, likely because it makes you feel safer in your bubble. You can pretend your boy Biden didn't align with racists and lecherous politicians like Byrd and Kennedy, you can pretend he doesn't make racially insensitive comments on an almost daily basis, you can pretend he doesn't have a long history of very questionable behavior with respect to women and children, you can pretend he hasn't been accused of a violent and predatory assault on a woman, and you can pretend a vote for Biden is a vote for progress. It doesn't make it so, and there's oodles of readily available media that suggests that your vote sets us all back 40+ years. These are the words and actions of the predator you choose to enable, while accusing others of doing exactly what you're doing.

I wasn't aware we were suddenly using Robert's Rules of Order for the COVID (or any other) thread. Besides, it wasn't about Trump's comments, it was about your characterization of supporters as follows: The backbending to defend this by comparing it to chemotherapy is silly. It is not the end of the world that he did this. It was just one of his gaffes borne of his world class narcissism that makes him think he’d know more than the scientists and suggest something that is actually pretty moronic. Since you opined about silliness, since you opined about gaffes, since you opined about world class narcissism, I thought I would reply in kind. That's the nature of interaction.

Maybe, but then again supporters of presidents in general defend their guy, or in Hillary’s case, their popular vote presidentress. One of the prime examples of this was one former president who struggled with the exact number of states in the union. Or that it was impossible to using the international banking system to transfer assets to a hostile regime. Another would be supporters of current candidate Biden. It’s just a thing.

And yet...the salty tears of liberal voters flowed like sweet nectar from above. One of my regrets is that we will never see that sort of thing again. From arrogance to overconfidence to premature celebration to concern to panic to crestfallen to crazed was just awesome. It was like a kick a$$ ride at Universal Studios.

“Everything there is need to know we already know.” -Every generation, ever