leh-nerd skin-erd

Go fish yourself? Go fishing yo!

The question posed by Scarborough would have been fair two or three election cycles ago had he been positioned as the front runner. "On his game" implies he had a presidential game at one point, and it's fair to say he never had one. Ever. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton...she had faults as a candidate. Putting aside the totality of her career in politics and enabling of her husband, her allies described her as reckless with national security. The president who's coattails she was supposed to ride could not not address the issues. Yet, she was THE chosen. When careless and reckless with national security issues is at the top of your resume from the perspective of your friends, and millions flock to vote for you, you have to wonder what impact things like confusion and memory issues would have on a candidate for president. I think the plan is to carry him through the election, a year or so in he develops a medical condition and bravely steps aside to allow the vp to become the first female vp to ascend to the presidency. One sidebar. Watching the alternate angle video posted above, he looks substantially younger when he smiles than he does when he is not. Smiling, a vibrant guy 70-80 years old. Listening and processing 80-90.

Lets not forget Mulva. You can't go around calling a woman Mulva and not expect to get doinked with your own helmet.

The question is poorly framed. That has not changed. I had a mentor once, a person I look up to in my field, and I called to get some feedback many years back. I opened with all the issues I had with the company we worked with, the delays, the confusion, whatever. I then asked for some feedback on team building and some of the concerns I had with the attitude of my team. To paraphrase, he replied "With due respect, great southern rocker, I listened to what you said and have to ask you: Have you considered how what you say and how you say it impacts your own team and the way they look at their day with you?". The interesting part about that experience was that to whatever extent I've been successful in life, my ability to read, interact and harmonize with people has been a big part of that success. I frequently encounter people with opposing views, listen respectfully and respond in kind. I'd suggest that part of your problem in this particular forum is due in part to your own limitations and bias. Heck, you even chose to make a point of contention on the factual, indisputable argument that Congress is divided on the impeachment issue. I didn't even point out the obvious: Congress is divided over the moral and ethical question of "wrong". I guess in the end, one man's horse**** is another man's innocent quest for clarity. Seek first to understand, then to be understood.

I’ve been nothing but respectful toward you and interpret your posts as I believe you intend them. I can interpret my own post and intent because I wrote it, but I believe your initial post was poorly framed as I do not know what “wrong” you were referring to. I think part of your problem was you personalized it by making it about Trump, you referenced wrong and impeachable in the same sentence, and clarity was an issue. I think you’re wrong on the freedom loving Americans down here, and as for consensus in Congress I agree, but I was speaking not as a partisan but from a position of pure objectivity on impeachment. Have a blessed day my friend.

EARMUFFS! I find your language offensive, or would if I did not swear like a longshoreperson myself. But a reminder that Tibsy, Busey and jrobers may all have a snow day today. Let’s put impeachable to the side for a moment, there seems to be ample evidence an objective person would be able to look at the political landscape right now and acknowledge there is no consensus there. As for “wrong”, are you asking if the overly simplistic fact pattern you outlined is morally wrong, wrong from a legal perspective and are you speaking in political terms? For instance, I thought it wrong that Trump inserted himself into the NFL controversy with players kneeling. I did not think it an impeachable offense. I also thought it wrong of Trump to make comments about John McCain as a POW, but given the political nature of the dispute between the two, McCains own pettiness and the fact that he was just another fat cat politician engorging himself at public trough, context was important to me. I would agree that if Trump was a Russian spy, working in the interests of the Russians, to destroy our country as suggested by many of your people, that would constitute an impeachable offense and I would consider it “wrong”.

Your question was poorly framed, thus answering it seemed silly.

A rare instance of taking one’s self out of context.

I believe....and I may be wrong here..we get the tiebreaker over the dolphins if need be.

The new top three go-tos for the liberal mind when debating impeachment of a President: 1. SNL 2. Comedy Central 3. SpongeBobFromMichigan Squarepants

I don't spend much time watching TV anymore, but I'm on vacation and was flipping through and caught part of Tucker Carlson's show last night. He showed the surveillance clip of the FBI in tactical gear raiding Stone's house, and mentioned the CNN tipoff prior to the daring night time raid. He juxtaposed it with the Epstein arrest, the care with which courtesy was extended and civility considered for that guy. I understand commentators will make false comparisons, that one issue might be a federal case, another being pursued on a state level, but the comparison is pretty striking. You have the left tossing their collective salad celebrating the tyranny of government, thus emboldening the tyrants further. Hell if 50% of the citizenry are apathetic at best, or masturbatory voyeurs of a tactical SWAT style raid on a political opponent that everyone in America knew was being targeted for arrest by the Comey-tainted FBI, what's next? This was tactical oppression designed to perpetuate political suppression.

I think the whole shebang backfires like a mofo. The point isn’t Russian assistance, or payoffs to the ladies—the point is he paid his taxes! ::patriot emoji::

Nah. Screw patience. I’m enjoying the ride, albeit with occasional bouts of motion sickness. I’m spending my money on Bills tickets, Sunday Ticket, and some gear. I see improvement, that’s all I really care about.

Seems fairly obvious to me that, when taking all factors into account, the 32 teams that chose the road more traveled made the right call all along. Dear Major Bobby, Some fans likely hate him. Some fans likely don't like him. Some fans likely like him, and some fans likely like LIKE him. Signed, Human Nature

JP was a highly regarded player coming out of college, and the mix in Miami simply did not work. He comes to WNY, enjoys the team, the players, the coaching staff and the city. He's matured into a very good player and is one of the top DTs in the league. Former second rounder projected by many to go in the first round. He plays hard and brings passion to the game. I don't claim to know much about scheme fits, what McD and Frazier want to do well that JP may not, or salary cap, but as a fan I cannot think of a reason you would not want a guy like JP on your team. I also have heard that the Bills were interested in a longer term deal but that JP was willing to let things play out and see what the market would be after this year. Seems like he made the correct choice.

Man, some people really like to work hard to find fault with others. What was the part of the interview where he became a j/a? Question asked, question answered. Question asked again, question answered again. Question asked again, question answered again. There is no deep existential answer lurking in the shadows that the interviewer can draw out. A guy clubbed another guy with a helmet. Seems like a violent act by a violent person, at least violent in the moment. When JH is asked what Coach McD said about bashing people in the head with a helmet, what exactly would you expect Jerry to say Coach McD said? Don't lead with the crown of the helmet? Given the league's emphasis on protecting the head, limit the beatings with a helmet to the upper torso, arms or thigh area?

Jesus, that Schaffer’s blowing the whistle one is hysterical. Trump should get a free pass for ONE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE just for sending that out!!

I swore I was done, but now you dragged me back in. You’re working so damn hard to convince yourself that your pals banging $135k per year are the victims of social and financial injustice, that you’re losing track of common sense. You’ve derided people who’s parents pay or assist with college because, *****, I don’t know, they are willing to sacrifice to help the next generation. At the same time, while hitting the obligatory “mommy and daddy” reference, you’re advocating that you pals at $12,000 per month gross should line up in the governmental soup kitchen line because they can’t stay in a Marriott when they fly to Scotland once or twice a year? Who are these people, and why are they working so hard at being victims? It’s stunning how soft some people are, and how others enable them in someone else’s dime.

I agree. We can discuss relativity all day long, but it was late, cheap, unprovoked and TW had no ability to defend himself. It forever changed the way I looked at Grinkowski. Deliberate attempt to injure, scumbag move, and the penalty from the NFL was garbage.

I know you took some flack on this one, but while I don’t know about “worse”, the Gronkowski hit on Tre was certainly very dangerous. Gronkowski at 230lbs hit a guy laying face down on what amounts to padded concrete, with a running start, after the play was long over. Tre said after the play “he could have broken my neck”. He clearly was hurt after the play and entered concussion protocol. The NFLs actions on that incident were egregiously soft in the context of the leagues supposed commitment to player safety, and it’s no wonder things escalate later on.

It’s like you had a thought baking in the old incubator, started typing it out and realized #$&@ like that happens every day in “gov’t”.

I understand your perspective. I love my family, have travelled for nearly 40 years to visit them. I’ve taken vacations, managed credit, screwed up on credit cards and dug out of the hole of my own making. I also made conscious decisions to forgo trips, visits, the newest tv and or any other disposable goods. Throughout it all, I never convinced myself that my personal spending habits and personal choices superseded my obligation to figure $#@& out and meet my obligations. let me put it this way and then we can agree to disagree: I agree 100% if the government forgives the debts of everyone with a college loan, by extension it frees up disposable cash for them to spend. They may be able to upgrade the carpet, buy some new Jordan sneaks, go out to the movies or just stick the cash under the mattress for a rainy day. They also received the benefit of education, the experience of attending college, and in many cases a job commensurate with the education. The same argument can be made for those who went to trade school, self-funded their education, or went to work as a waiter or custodian or work at the local library. You give them $800 per month and they have $800 per month to spend. There are definitely victims in your scheme, you just picked the wrong group, I do, however, agree that it makes sense for people to renegotiate terms and interest rates, but that’s a whole different issue than what you’re proposing.

Update..you're like the Riddler with multiple person disorder. Everyone else business is not your business, you're judgy on other people's philosophy on their money and while a Christian, you dont wnat to be super Christian-judgy except when it comes to Matthew 6:24.

You're like The Riddler. On the one hand, it's none of you business who needs what. On the other you are very judgy on people's relationship with money. That must be the socialist part of you?

Why would that be odd? People have hot button issues and vote with their wallets and emotions all the time. I'm conflicted about CK and hope it never comes to it, but I'd think hard about emotionally/financially supporting the team if he was QB. My son was stunned when I told him I'd be sorta meh about a SB win for BB if CK was at the helm. On the one hand, painting all law enforcement officials as pigs and whatnot seems to me to he the same as equating all NFL players as OJ, Ray Rice or Incognito. On the other hand, maybe I'd find myself swayed by his approach and demeanor and try and move past what he has said or done and how I feel about it. As for the NFL, you're 100% correct on the billions but I'd think there is more than a passing concern about attendance and social issues. When all is said and done, whether I watch/attend or not, and whether the Bill's win or not is all about perceived value to me. I'd bet they can afford to lose me, but do they want to?