leh-nerd skin-erd

Man, this just shows how much of a winner 45 really is. Billionaires are lucky.

Under normal circumstances, reasonable people would think it odd that a president in power for 8 years in the waning moments of his term would suddenly expel 35 diplomats from what apparently was a serious foreign adversary/super power intent on doing us grave harm. Rounding up a day or two, the guy was king of the world for 3,287 days, working with, negotiating with, offering to partner with Russia. All along, with access to all the secrets of the world, business as usual. On day 3,286, suddenly, almost miraculously he finds his testicles, zips of his bean bag and gets the beer muscles on. You people are dumb, and who cares that I know it, the key is he knows it.

I would go with pomposity, maybe utter pomposity, but that's only because you grabbed audacity first. If they want to reach the young people, they should just shortcut it and put Biden on the panel. He'll grab 'em but good.

Never. Sure he’s got the high cheek bones and wide set eyes of a Nefertiti, but that just makes him exotic.

Mansplaining, not cool in 2020.

I have been warned, and thank you. Wait though...if you’re part of the machine, you would be right. That would be how you draw us in. ?

there is so much about this series of posts that is troubling. Obviously, since I took the time to consider it, it's all on me. Then, Nanks provides enlightenment and I'm forced to confront the limitations of my creativity and intellect because it all makes so much sense. Still, I'm reading your response now and thinking the damn thing spins "3rdInning" again...could I be dyslexic? Is that peven ossible at 59? That would be bad enough...but then you went and made it dirty.

Well, this is really awkward. I'd like to tell you I was joking when I asked, but that would be a lie, and you're part of the cabal anyways.

I haven't gotten to you yet, but since you brought it up. "3rd". Deranged. Niagara. 3rd. Look at how it's laid out, you're literally 3rd. You've offered a barrel, a barrel offers protection from harm. You're providing cover for DR and Niagara50k. I don't know why I didn't see it before. By the way, while I'm accusing you of treachery, a question. I always read your screen name and think "3rd Inning". I don't know why, but as I read this today, i realized it's only 3rd Inning if I have a speech impediment which wouldn't matter here. That got me thinking, maybe it's not 3rd at all. Maybe you're into RdnLngs, and you have 3. The trouble is, what the heck is a Rdnlng? Elaborate, vile fiend.

I may be way out there but... Niagara Bill. Niagara....Bill. Niagara..a massive waterfall. A waterfall literally brings a fall of water. One cannot live without water, and thus without water a person will surely fall. A bill...evidence of a debt incurred. You're in on it. I cannot prove it yet, but the one called Deranged Rhino (for now) owns you like Howard Dean owns a crazy scream. Your name gives you away. You hid in plain site....but you owe a debt to DR that must be paid or surely you will fall. It all just clicked. Criss cross. 50,000.

This really doesn’t frustrate me at all. It’s a welcome distraction from thinking about the $&#@ show that is our political system.

I remember when you predicted that when DR was at 29,997 posts. Sure, it was just before Labour Day, but it WAS odd that we didn’t hear a thing from him until Tuesday. Everyone knows CIA cuts checks on a Monday. You were so in the zone I took your picture.

I don’t know why I bother trying to understand you. You keep moving the mark. You previously said people resort to name-calling when they have lost an argument, and you resorted to name calling. You can’t go all Joe Biden here and change the rules midstream so they don’t apply to you. Well, you can, obviously but why bother? Yes or No....did I correctly characterize what you said about name-calling in an earlier post? As for the conviction issue, I only tried to square what you said to me on Friday, when you guessed but were not sure, v what you stated today emphatically to DR. I’m confused because last week, you indicated you knew he plead guilty, and that seemed to be common knowledge. Today, you say you saw an article that indicated he plead guilty and it cleared it up for you, but I’ve read all the posts you sent me and something seems off. You strike me as an intelligent, cautious and calculating man. I find it hard to believe you would shift so dramatically from Maybe-Conviction-Friday to 100%-Certain-Conviction-Monday over some half-baked article written by Suzie Dipwadd at the Toronto Sun. You were excruciatingly technical on this issue previously. Finally, I appreciate the time and effort it took to type the 14 sentences in your second paragraph that prove your point once and for all that the case is fully, completely and undeniably resolved (almost), other than the matters not yet resolved. At the risk of repeating myself, it’s a very complicated case and it seems to get more complicated by the day. The 12 attorneys general through a wrench in it all today, they seem to think the case is not resolved at this point, even though General Flynn is now banging out license plates on deaf row in Attica. Yes, deaf row. He’s right next to Suge Knight.

I'm getting ready anyways: *&^%ing officials always %$#@ing screw us!

I think he's 4-0 on the subject matter, so there is that. Let's say 3-0, with 2020 Elections pending. When your perv wins, you rightly can do the happy dance.

That's weird. General Flynn plead guilty/The End!, and this is going to make a lot of people feel that the legal maneuvering is ongoing and that this matter is...unresolved. Are these people even attorneys???

You're doing it again, and I've acknowledged your value twice while you've implied I'm being obtuse. Though...what unresolved motion does Flynn have pending? And btw---on Friday you were pretty clear you were guessing on the conviction as you had not really paid much attention to the case. Today though...you wrote this: #conflicted #feelingwary #wordsmatter Oh...and in the past, you've been quite vocal about name-calling and lost arguments. Et tu, Section3eh?

If you insist on suggesting the case is resolved, you must stop telling me that the case is unresolved. It's poor form. Besides, I think you missed it, but I acknowledged that I value you.

Your experience could range from grocery store bagger to longshoreman to JC Penny Hand'n'Foot Model, so that doesn't help me here. My experience tells me that legal matters can be complicated. Innocent people plead guilty. Guilty people plead not guilty. Plea deals are offered, some taken, others rejected. So, when I read that Michael Flynn plead guilty, had that been the end of it I would have assumed he plead guilty. When he wasn't sentenced, I thought that was odd, given that he plead guilty. When he filed to withdraw his plea, it seemed to me that he was stating emphatically he was not guilty. Had his request to withdraw his plea been denied by the court, I'd have assumed the court was moving forward to the sentencing phase. When that didn't happen, I moved it into the unresolved bucket. When the DOJ decided he wasn't guilty of anything at all, and that the case should be dropped, I wondered why there was any need for any further deliberation, since the government clearly stated the case against him was not valid. Then, when it was returned to the judge, I figured he would figure that since the DOJ dropped the case, and there was clear evidence that prosecutors withheld evidence that should have been provided to him, the judge would move forward and close this bad boy out. When the judge opted instead to continue the matter in a partisan fashion, i thought that seemed odd. To me, it seems that the case itself is unresolved, but again, I want to be clear: it's only unresolved because it lacks resolution. I understand where you are coming from and I want you to know I value you.

We can agree that you absolutely think it.

I wasn't playing a game. You suggested that when things got complicated after you suggested he was convicted without being sure. I said all along that it's complicated, mostly because it is. Anyway, I'm not sure why it took so long to come to an agreement that the Flynn case has yet to be resolved, but we got there. Glad you came around. ?

Who is D? Defendant? #confusing When is the sentencing for the guilty plea? The case is not resolved, but only in the sense that it continues. Let's move on-- did you figure out convicted/not convicted yet? You were sorta wishy-washy on that issue on the 15th.

Honestly, I think so. I’m not sure why everything has to be wrapped in 7 layers of emotional fabric, but it seems almost like he’s trying to convince himself that Joe’s ok. Can’t be easy.

Oh boy. You dropped “toxic” on me. I have to be honest, if my discourse on one of the major issues of our time, and the manner in which I interact is “toxic” to you you’re as soft as melted butter. You shared something, I replied with something from the same author that reveals a contradiction in approach to similar circumstances and you’re off to the bomb shelter? On Biden, you’ve missed the larger point. The “always believe her” message is his, not mine. Biden laid out the rules along with all the usual suspects in the party, attempted to destroy a man based on a story that was devoid of facts, any at all. Here you go: https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/watch-joe-biden-claims-kavanaughs-accuser-must-believed I never subscribed to the theory personally, not because women are not abused, but because it’s rock $#@& stupid to state in a public forum “ALWAYS BELIEVE!”. It makes no sense, it’s an impossible standard to manage, and is so clearly wrought with potential for malfesance as to be among the dumbest sales ploys ever foisted upon the American people. Fortunately, only half the American people are simple enough to buy it. It took less than one election cycle to be used on their dopey 2x loser of a candidate and the coalition cracked like an egg. It doesn’t help that the guy is a perv, the story credible with a Larry King tape from nearly 30 years ago, and multiple people confirming the tale. It will be incredibly satisfying if it costs Biden the presidency and his legacy. Fortunately, there may be hope for you yet. Buried in your anguished defense of your Creepy Uncle Joe was this: All you guys desperately want to do is distract from the multiple issues with the Biden accusation by pointing to the unjustifiably accused Kavenaugh, and that's wildly problematic. ”the unjustifiably accused Kavanaugh....” I asked what you thought because I wanted to know. I had to read it twice to see if you answered (what’s with you lefty’s being afraid to answer simple questions simply?). I don’t think I can understand why you personally would support people who participated in the attempt to destroy someone with allegations of sexual assault and participating in rape trains, but I will acknowledge your comments on Kavanaugh. We agree there, that’s enough for today.

I'm not trying to be argumentative at all, in was looking for dialogue with someone who holds a different opinion than I do. What I think about the Biden accusations is really irrelevant, mostly because I'm not a Biden supporter. Since you asked, I'm 60-40 that it played out as she has alleged, maybe 70-30. I'm a skeptic by nature. I personally know of young men wrongfully accused, I'm aware of issues associated with Titke IX that I can't get my head wrapped around, and I balance that with the belief that most women who levels accusations are being truthful. When you add money and political wrangling to the mix who the heck knows. Your pattern, if I may, seems to be you send an article or a clip over for consideration that supports your view and decline to engage further on the topic. You sent over the Vox opinion piece to me, as if it shed knew and important information on the case. That's fine, I read it, checked out the author and in 30 seconds found a piece that was excoriated a man with 30+ years of dedicated public service, a reputation as an honest jurist and a decent family man....and that author's treatment was completely different for that individual. In my mind, that fact alone reveals her to be a partisan, and I discard her opinions totally. Here's the interesting part. I asked you what you thought about that, what your thoughts were about the Kavanaugh debacke, and you took a pass. To me, that means you didn't care, you find it acceptable to have different standards for different political idealogies, or you missed the question. I inquired again, still no reply. Now, you've defended Biden by suggesting TR has no credibility and suggest I'm argumentative when you fail to even identify Biden directly as despicable if he assaulted a woman? Why send me the Vox piece if you're not interested in discussing its merits? Biden/Reade aside, the many videos shared of Biden establish his quirks. I'm going to go out on a limb and say by age 13, most boys know where his hands can go and where they cannot when interacting with a girl. Generally, it's nowhere without her consent. Not her hair, not her shoulders, and certainly not anywhere that a bathing suit would generally cover. Giving Biden the benefit of the doubt because he's 114 years old, times were different and maybe he thought clamping a lady's shoulder with his clammy meat hooks was acceptable through 1980. Hips, hair and some of the extremely troubling videos of his hands wandering to the chest areas of little girls was never ok, even if you were a soldier in the days of the dog faced pony soldier. Thinking about it more, I'm 85-15 he did it. Regardless, Joe Biden and your leadership team established two seperate standards. One is "eliminate all conservatives", the other employed for you and yours is "eliminate the accuser". What are your thoughts on Biden's treatment by Vox, and by women in power in the Dem ranks, v those same people with respect to Kavanaugh? If they are the same, great, then we know what you think. If different, why, and why you would personally accept that?