leh-nerd skin-erd

“….new book says…”. 🤔

I don’t speak for Irv or his parties, but I’m not sure what you don’t understand. The complaints that she’s a key player in a government that directs massive amounts of money to foreign entities at the expense of tax paying citizens here? That Biden isn’t much more active during a major catastrophe? That she appeared with a media member with a long history of controversial behavior as described? Or that she’s focused on one voting block at the expense of others. For context, Stern has suggested that certain people should be denied hospital care if they don’t align with his beliefs, and worse. This is all standard fare.

He debated 2x, and it seems silly to enable the democrat party that couldn’t figure out whether to run with an increasingly senile old codger or the West Coast liberal. Your people shouldn’t have tried to force the geez on the country when he was clearly not able to do the job. No, better to run on what is already known and let the people decide. Morley Safer is gone, Leslie Stahl is in the equivalent of a journalistic retirement home and there are more efficient ways to transit the message points. Part of the problem—besides being on network TV—the institutional arrogance. Trump doesn’t want to go, report it and move on. Simple. He isn’t doing it because he sees no benefit to it. If the local Baskin-Robins demanded a candidate sit down for a chat, doesn’t compel anyone to attend.

Look, you might enjoy a a quick look at the TV Guide, a cup of Earl Gray and a hearty dose of "Murder She Wrote", but just about everyone else is on to the game of legacy shows like 60 Minutes. Carefully edited news shows are relic of a bygone era, likely like your receding hairline. Be happy--you probably had a good run.

It doesn’t matter. 60 Minutes is a relic of a bygone era.

Roundy says he 's fifty-fifty on that sort of thing. He favors a bandone.

A guy in a Springsteen shirt flipped your books at Gowanda Jr High in '78, didn't he, Irv? You could be right on this, Scot. Good God that's dark, but you may be correct.

I saw Springsteen in the Meadowlands in the 1980s. He said at one point “Blind faith in your government can get you killed…”. There was a tremendous applause as the gathered masses—cons, lib, agnostic—-recognized the truth of that statement. Years later, he goes full throated supporter of a political party, an aging kazillionaire aligning with government that suits his agenda. He was right the first time.

You linked to a GOP site here? It says “Real Raw News”.

1997 was nearly 3 decades ago, and he’s been a major player since well before that. I’m not certain what you characterize as “hated”, but he was a very successful media personality and just based on his style, it’s highly likely his people were digging for dirt, angles and controversial material his entire career. I started listening to him in 1985ish, and understand your point on his version of comedy. However, given his rage at people he disagrees with now, and his declarations on what he hopes happens to them, it’s also fair to view his past bits and wonder what level of animus, condescension racism/sexism/homophobia played a part in all that. Either way, his past actions are what he brings to the table, and it’s always sort of cringey when a person sees the light long after their behavior has earned them a few hundred mill.

I don’t know about that, but I’d certainly think he was complicit in lots of ugly **** going on back in Hollywood/music scene for much of his time as a professional. He was well-connected with insiders setting up interviews, meeting with stars, etc. The best way to avoid any comeuppance in that regard is to have a full blown rebirth, especially given the immense wealth he’s accumulated over the decades. Maybe Harris is going to ask him about all that.

Not with that attitude, Little Mister.

Start today on your journey to being part of the solution, 4th. Sorry to hear that L Ron—-best of luck over the next few days and weeks. These things are no joke.

#roundy nails it.

Much ado about nothing. One of Harris' resume boosters was running a political hit job on a SC nominee involving allegations of deviant behavior by the nominee. She also stated quite emphatically that she believed women who accused Biden of touching them inappropriately and without their consent. That's all before we get to HRC enabling WJC and spinning tales of vast right wing conspiracies and victim blaming. Seems to me you're willing to cast your vote for one person engaged in piggish behavior (and based already have with JB) while holding Irv to a higher standard. That's consistent with liberal voters, of course, but still. Oops--there we go. Lies are not lies when you believe them not to be lies, or when lies are lied only for your version of the greater good. A wise man once said "Oops--there we go. Lies are not lies when you believe them not to be lies, or when lies are lied only for your version of the greater good.".

It’s those who pretend it doesn’t play out that way who end up looking foolish.

This was my point the other day. The knee jerk response is to blame the party in power, point fingers and use this sort of tragedy for political gain. By the time Helene hit, the decisions to prioritize funding for other expenditures had long been made. It’s a uniquely government phenomenon, not unlike Medicare and Social Security.

Ah, ok. That’s very interesting.

I've been accused of being overly wordy, condescending, high and mighty, a nazi, and delightfully handsome and charming in my time here. I can't help what you (and all of you) think, but I believe most do not need a secret decoder ring to figure out what I think on topics I engage in. I asked because I wanted to know what L. Ron thought about that particular subject. He answered. That's it. Oh, and some people* think you stated that I was changing the subject when I asked L that question, and that you went and changed the subject when you brought up speeding tickets in a hilarious coincidence. Do you think you mirrored the behavior that you think I implied when I didn't? (*For clarity--I am "some people")

In the past, I've wasted time with dishonest posters, and you remind me of one. Strike 1: You inquired with a question, I answered and posed one of my own. You w*ssed out without answering. Strike 2: You lied about insults lobbed at L Ron, I gave you an opportunity to step up, you w*ssed out again. Strike 3: I asked you who suggested the Immunity case changed the documents case, you w*ssed out again. Strike 4: I didn't ask anyone to apply anything. Have a nice day.

Who said it did?

My most recent post was dedicated to pointing out your lack of self-awareness. Initially, I didn't suggest you were changing the subject, that was you directing criticism at me. I had no issue with your suggestion we move past the Immunity conversation, I just didn't want to do that. With respect to the entire process, I've shared my thoughts. I understand yours and L Rons. I was under no illusion I would change any hearts or minds.

I didn't, and it is what it is, as it was when I typed the response.

I responded to a post about Trump supporters, and my thoughts on the odd set of circumstances that seem to surround the cases involving Trump. Here's my disclaimer: I don't care one way or the other how L Ron, Starr, you or anyone else feel about that, I was simply communicating how I feel to another poster. I asked about the SC and immunity to that particular poster because I was interested in thoughts on the SC decision. I'm not a Rubix cube, not the DaVinci Code, not an enigma wrapped in a riddle. To his credit, @L Ron Burgundy answered the question apparently of his own volition, with no undue or harsh pressure exerted upon him to compel his reply. We all can rest easy tonight on that issue. Now, maybe you can help me with your perspective on thoughts shared by another poster. Do you feel a case involving a driver going 49 in a 40 is directly relevant to a case involving a Special Counsel, an armed raid of a private dwelling, charges lodged, decisions made, Supreme Court involvement, the handling/mishandling of classified documents, and the impact on a presidential election? I don't recall seeing the '49 in a 40' precedent in the Smith filings.

Most sensible people would have to work hard to put together a post so unabashedly self-aware as this one, Starr, but kudos to you for setting the benchmark. L. Ron: "I think some things are black and white...Trump supporters never think he lies..etc etc..." Leh-nerd: "I think this...because of that...everything in not black and white...what are your thoughts about the SC and immunity as it relates to the subject of Trump/Smith...etc etc". Starr: "LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT AND IMMUNITY AS IT RELATES TO TRUMP/SMITH AND BLACK AND WHITE ISSUES AND THE FORMER PRESIDENT." Leh-nerd: I understand you don't want to discuss that, Starr, but I do. Your terms are unacceptable to me. Starr: YOU'RE CHANGING THE SUBJECT. THIS IS ABOUT TRUMP/SMITH AND NOTHING ELSE! IT'S AN AFRONT TO CIVILITY AND DEBATE TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT! Starr, 12.3 seconds later: Now, let's talk about vehicle and traffic law and how it applies here... 🤫