leh-nerd skin-erd

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?

Excellent summary 59, thanks for that!

There is nothing to question. You surely realize that a victim of sexual assault is traumatized multiple times, and that inconsistencies are sure to arise. It’s a hallmark of abusers and their enablers to become hyper-fixated on small inconsistencies while claiming that the predator is the real victim. Interesting phrasing here: I'll say it again, if Biden did this, it’s despicable. “It’s” despicable? Not “he’s” despicable? It’s fascinating the lengths people will go to to rationalize their own thought process, even as their subconscious is screaming at them that there’s a disconnect with their value system. Good stuff. Question....what were your thoughts on the treatment of Brett Kavanaugh by people like the Vox author, Gilibrand, Pelosi and Biden? Did you agree with them then? Or, now?

KaBoom. Much more detailed than I had hoped for, and very much appreciated . It really reads like a vignette from a sexual harassment seminar about the power dynamic, rationalization to the extreme and normalizing predatory behavior. In fact, the creators of such a seminar could not draw up a cast of characters like Biden, Kennedy and the like and have it even remotely believable. Thanks.

Reading the story about the enablers who shared time in his various campaigns etc, you get nearly to the end before reading that a when a powerful Senator engages in “stroking a woman’s hair” it’s a “complicated dynamic”. That’s interesting. Btw BG, given that many of the female staffers purportedly interviewed for the story would likely be aged 50+, your thoughts on the impact of being from a different generation and all that involves? Seems to me they spend a lot of time rationalizing touching/groping/sniffing as sort of life in that world at that time. I hesitate to say it, but it seems an awful lot like enabling to me. I’ll be offline for a bit today, if you get a chance, let me know what you think.

So weird. We hear all the time that the behavior of a victim post-assault literally mirrors the journey of TR, but she’s apparently the ONE who’s story should be discounted. Oddly, there are probably 500 tapes and videos of Joe Biden groping, fondling and petting women, and many more of him being abusive, fingers pointed in faces, harsh words and racist statements. What did you think of the handling of the Brett Kavanaugh nomination? They never had a moral conduct arrow in their quiver. It’s an illusion, and I know you know that, but it needs to be pointed out.

No, I’m a thinking man. I would dismiss this story because the author Is a hypocrite. I’d dismiss it because she wrote so eloquently of inconsistencies in Ms. Reade’s story, downplayed Joe Biden’s decades of fondling women as just Joe being Joe, and repeated a leftist talking point of Trump acknowledging assault of women when he did not. I’d dismiss it further because she wrote so passionately on Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Ballsy Ford just a short while ago, participating in yet another liberal attempt to disembowel a man accused by an operative with no specifics, no corroboration, allies and sources that rejected her claims outright. I’d dismiss her story because she allowed powerful members of her tribe (Gilibrand, Pelosi and the like) to follow one course of action (character assasination of a man with a wife and two beautiful little girls who looked up to him) under the guise “it’s a job interview!” while enabling and supporting a man who himself acknowledges inappropriate and unwanted physical contact. I’d dismiss this story because, inexplicably, this author quotes Joe Biden’s #2, apparently the only female in America who knew nothing about Biden’s roaming hands, and accepted it on face value. Mostly though, I’d dismiss it because the rules of the game were set by Joe Biden, #believeher, #metoo, and all the powerful members of your tribe that lined up behind politics to destroy Kavanaugh, Trump, Clarence Thomas and so many others. All you’re doing here is taking an opinion piece, with an author who bets the people who support her are so blinded by partisan hatred that they will participate in the enablement of powerful men abusing women so long as they are the right men abusing the correct women. I’ve linked to another short story written by the author with a decidedly different tone.https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/1/17917532/brett-kavanaugh-truth-ralph-devils-triangle-speeches-i-believe Why do you accept this &$#@ and let them drag you around by the nose? You’re part of the problem.

God bless, my friend.

@Deranged Rhino? The guy is a professed west coast liberal likely lounging about in a rarely washed Che T-shirt, balding with a comb-back into a pony tail now fashioned into a man-bun. He’s probably wearing faded camo shorts with open-toed sandals and says things like “truth-to-power”, “occupy”, “cancel” and “woke”. I’m a pretty straight-laced guy who wears shirts with collars and funny little logos on them, I like a shirt that’s crisply ironed so I do it myself, live in upstate NY, can’t understand why anyone would espouse liberal (aka “progressive”) principles that often seem to boil down to “everyone is &$$@ing you so become a ward of the state!”. I just don’t understand why people buy into all that victimization only to be victimized. I voted straight line R for the last 30 years, considered a vote for Biden 5 years ago because I couldn’t believe it was perhaps coming down to another Clinton, another Bush or eegads Donald Trump??? I found him pretty entertaining, actually, wasn’t at all crazy about him potentially buying the Bills and certainly thought nothing good could come from him running the country. I’d bet the differences DR and I have politically outnumber what we agreed on, or did until the last 10 years got me thinking. I think about political dynasties, the difference, if any between power brokers in American politics, and how chummy folks like Barry, Shell, W and Laura actually are in spite of disagreements over things like sending young men and women off to die. Mostly what I think about is how someone like you, likely someone I’d otherwise enjoy having a beer with and watching a Bills game, maybe discussing politics here or there, how someone like you could support attempting to steal my vote and unseat a President who picked up the support of 60,000,000 other Americans. I’d not do that to you. The fact that you’re supporting a well-known sexual predator with 40 year history of making $#@& up, fondling women and girls and who keeps trying to brush his teeth with his car keys is just delicious irony. You can laugh, roll your eyes, claim conspiracy theories abound but you “get pulled back” for a reason. The truth is there’s no reason to come back to crazy town unless you’re a masochist, because you leave a bit more torn up that when you came. Maybe you’re trying to justify your belief system, maybe you’re hoping to come back and find this energetic, engaging, quirky little band of misfits wailing because we finally realize that Trump got caught, that your boys Brennan, clapper, Comey, McCabe, Clinton and Barack Obama were always right. It ain’t gonna happen, because so far, the coin keeps flipping and we keep being right. You’re missing a golden opportunity to be more open-minded here. Step away from the poison of most WaPo articles and “anonymous sources deep within”, that toxic sh&t is bad for you. As for the election, if Biden wins, he wins. DR still has to wash his beret now and again, and these damn shirts don’t iron themselves. Rest assured though, I’ll be laughing my ass off wondering if you’re wondering what the heck that wet-looking sticky stuff is on Biden’s fingers as he takes the oath of office and says: I do salmony squares that I will faithfully ***** on the Office of President of the....the....uh, States....United Steaks, and will to the best of my stability preservatives, protect and defend wood fired pizza”. Welcome back, good to hear your thoughts, other than that gross stuff you typed earlier.

Good stuff. Let’s get to it.

I think the Flynn case is anything but simple, especially when someone with your legal background struggles to explain his perspective to a humble man of God like me. If the plea is vacated, and the case dropped, in your world, is he still guilty? If the plea is vacated, and General Flynn set free, and the DOJ continues to espouse his innocence, was he still convicted (maybe) as you have halfheartedly argued? Or....is your suggestion that because he initially plead guilty (as he surely did), and may subsequently be vindicated, plea withdrawn and charges dropped, that he was guilty from ××/xx/17 to ××/xx/20? It just seems that so many things are unresolved. Warmly. LS

Ok. Now I follow. You're saying it's resolved with open questions on the part of the prosecution, defense, judge and that there are maybe convictions with unusual circumstances yet to be resolved. I understand things as you see them now. I wonder how General Flynn is holding up under all this unresolved certainty.

I'm not a legal expert and never claimed I was. It seems that you believe you are an expert on legal matters, and that's fine. I will leave you with this. As it stands right now, three "experts" or "teams of experts" in the field have come up with three different ways of moving forward with the curious case of Michael Flynn. That was after multiple "experts" in law enforcement debated the initial allegations of wrongdoing by General Flynn, with a variety of opinions before the charges were filed, and a slew of experts performing the post-mortem of the case and cast of characters involved have rendered varying opinions about the legalities and processes followed by the initial "experts" in the case. Nothing is resolved at this point, and onward we go. Even a rube like me can see that. Please feel free to mock me further for my lack of legal acuity. If you find the time down the road to button up your crackerjack maybe/maybe not/probably conviction argument, let me know.

Wrong. We all use judgement when discussing these issues, though I try to stick to facts that support my judgement. I assumed you were doing the same until you riffed on the phrase "conviction". I'm just following the logic of the case, the actions of the various players. As I said a few posts back, as sad as this case appears to be, it reveals what a citizen can accomplish when he/she avails him/herself of the full scope of the justice system. My particular issue on your last guesstimate was that the case had reached the point where a 'conviction' had been attained. It wasn't my guesstimate, it was yours. You hedged a bit by indicating you were not following closely, though apparently closely enough to annoint kindly Judge Atticus Finch-Sullivan fair beyond a reasonable doubt, it just seemed to me that would be easy enough to verify. As it stands, it's a guess, conjecture, a whisper in the wind. We can both agree there is not much to be gained by debating guesses on factual matters?

Wait a second...you're telling me I'm wrong because you've opted to guess about the status? While that's a bold play, I politely decline to engage in speculation as to my knowledge, there has been no conviction.

I always wonder if people are embarrassed by post like the one referenced, at least upon reflection. In this case, @transplantbillsfan and @Deranged Rhino have gone back and forth on Biden for quite some time. Transpy has been quite vocal on Biden being an exceptional candidate of virtue, and on him running away with the election come November. Objectively, he's been at least as guilty of preemptive celebration as DR, if not more. True, he seems to be less vocal since he was brought up to snuff on Joe's personal spelunking peccadillos, but he may just be struggling with the acceptance phase of the cycles of grief. It's got to be so difficult to have found out the high horse you're so proud of is actually an oversized Scranton Gutter Rat. Then again...I'm hearing WaPo is about to break a story that Tara Reade is actually a paid operative of the KGB and a harlot from Trump's personal stable...backed up by 23 anonymous sources, which should make Transpy really happy. Take it to the bank.

I understand concepts, and while I appreciate the use of italic font, it's unnecessary here. Absent the DOJ, the judge is irrelevant. When the DOJ decided the case was bogus, they had the option to pursue or dismiss. I already acknowledged the judge has the right to act as he sees fit, and is doing so. "Eminently fair" simply reflects words of art, with no application here. The judge has revealed himself to be politically motivated throughout the course of the trial, and you hit the nail on the head by suggesting"...the judge doesn't trust Barr here". Simple answer --who gives a sh*t? The judge sees to the end of his desk, the end of his caseload and nothing more. His role is not to be the judge of the Attorney General--he lacks capacity, knowledge, understanding and experience in the role. In short, he's practicing judicial activism, and should rightly be treated as such. DOJ brought charges. Flynn opted to plead. Flynn realized a plea was the wrong way for him to proceed. DOJ decided to withdraw the charges. When is it coming? ?

Well, again, no. Engaging in dialogue is fine, we can go back and forth on these issues all day long. The DOJ chose to withdraw the case, so by extension, a guilty plea by General Flynn would have resulted in an travesty of justice. I suppose it's possible you believe that every case is adjudicated with fairness, that no party is ever coerced into making a plea under threat of governmental tyranny, that every prosecutor is above board and no innocent party is ever found guilty of a crime. I don't think you believe that, but it aligns with your political values in this case. Since the judge in the case has chosen to act as outlined, the only appropriate resolution is for Flynn's attorney to see it through. If the DOJ feels Sullivan is out of line, and they have the ability to remove him from the case lawfully, or isolate him generally, that would seem to be the best resolution for all parties involved. Clearly, the political animus rests with Judge Sullivan here. He's presided over the case, alleged 'treason' when no such claim was made, has chosen to disregard the thoughts of the DOJ, and sought out a politically motivated prosecutor to keep what is obviously a dog of a case forward. This squeezes Genera Flynn yet again, financially and emotionally, in spite of the obvious problems with the government case when there was one.

Time to dig up any and all dirt on a very partisan hack. He's already opined, seems far from impartial and needs to be treated as such. Obv political play by Sullivan taking care of his Irish pal Gleeson.

If you're Sullivan, or Comey, McCabe, Strozk Brennan or Joe "I didn't know nothing oh yes I actually knew everything" Biden, seems that Gleeson is a really good friend to have in your pocket.

At the time...fair question, I honestly could not tell you what I thought. I tend to believe most countries and/or militant groups have, are attempting to gather, or are planning how to start the search to obtain. For instance, this sort of #$@& qualifies: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_4304000/4304853.stm

I really couldn’t tell you a thing about him beyond his name, including nickname, and him calling iron mike “Mike cicely Tyson”. There are very few who can rival Mitch Blood Green’s 15 minutes of fame. “He-he-he jumping around like a B$TCH!!!”.

I would pay to see this guy on PPV.

I was not at all in the WMDs - hoax category. My assumption was that since virtually every political stripe was on the same page re: weapons of mass destruction, and that if I recall correctly, one of the chief weapons inspectors of the UN supported the claim---that WMDs were something to be concerned about. I also felt that Saddam Hussein was guilty of arrogance on a massive scale---that he could perpetually thumb his nose at the world and ^^%$# around with the inspection process. Further, I felt he overplayed his hand where W Bush was concerned, turns out he WAS the guy who would come find you in a rat hole. One last thought on that--knowing now what I know about the intelligence community, it would not surprise me in the least to find that W Bush was set up, and that many other political leaders were in on it. Hard to say how many heads that snake has. "Countless American lives lost"...this one hits home. It was post-Iraq post-WMD when yet another political cycle hit where American soldiers were betrayed (one way or the other), where lives were lost and precious little accomplished. It played a large part in me reanalyzing the world as I thought I knew it. Patriot Act--I was uneasy then...the old analysis that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried about surveillance has always been troubling to me. History reveals that in spite of all the platitudes and "Man that could never happen here!", there's always someone willing to lie, cheat and take your stuff.

More silliness. Frankly, more than I expected from you. No one knows what was in General Flynn's heart, or the analysis he applied to decide to plead, and then undo the plea. What we do know is that after an exhaustive review, the DOJ has decided the case was without merit. If you would like to debate whether or not, Flynn was fooled into thinking he was guilty of something he was not, or that he 100% knew he was guilty and 100% knew he would lose and anywhere in between, that calls for more guesswork than we need to bother with. I'm just looking at the case as a whole, from soup to nuts. I'm stating that in the calm light of day, the DOJ has determined that he was not guilty of a crime. Ergo, in the eyes of the DOJ, he was not only not guilty, he was innocent.