leh-nerd skin-erd

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... 🤫

God bless the negotiators who were able to keep the increases under 65%, while delaying the strike a full 90 days. That’s cold as ice.

I’d generally give a pass to an administration in the early stages of this type of event. There are many, many moving parts to disaster relief and I’d think the overwhelming sentiment to on-the-ground relief workers is to help as many people as possible as quickly as possible. It’s a tragic situation. However, I think the juxtaposition between aid to people in these areas as opposed to tax dollars directed to all things illegal immigration is as reasonable as any other discussion on priorities. I’m also taken aback by stories of officials shutting down rescue/aid efforts by locals in these areas when aid is slow to come from official sources. Of course, as with virtually every other situation, it’s a political talking point and just the way it goes. The admin in charge bears the weight of the charges of incompetence and slow response times.

You too, Frankish.

I understand you would prefer to bypass SCOTUS, but I prefer not to do that. This is the second time a poster used a speeding ticket analogy, and it’s as silly now as it was the first time it was raised. I do agree that law enforcement picks and chooses winners and losers in the game of life, and in politics, pretty much all bets are off when it comes to ethics, behavior and who gets pursued for what and when. Following your logic, allowing members of the political class in power to break the law without consequence, while attempting to place another in jail for life is the problem. Excellent, you concur with the SC decision. A jury may well end up coming to the conclusion you’ve jumped to, time will tell. Or, perhaps not.

You were flipping your biscuits about Trump supporters and how they view all this. I offered commentary on why supporters of Trump might feel that the justice might be skewed here, and some of the weird stuff that accompanies prosecution from a Dem admin, Dem DOJ, and Dem leaning AGs. If you don't care, that's fine with me but why throw your hands up, close you eyes and ears when someone offers an opinion. The outcome of the DOJ case against Trump has yet to be determined, L, though the DOJ is doing its level best to shape the narrative so that people like you have already decided guilt. There is virtually always gray in the law, and the Supreme Court rendered an opinion on immunity that changed the narrative on the Smith case. If you're naive enough to think anything is black and white, that's silly. Under the assumption that a career poli like Biden somehow completely misunderstood the rules regarding handling/holding/pilfering classified documents...and the notion that special consideration is given to special individuals. By definition, someone allowed to operate outside the law..just because...is afforded special treatment and what is black and white is certainly not. Question--do you accept the SC decision on Presidential immunity the correct, black and white interpretation of the law?

What always sort of intrigues me about the Trump as Felon discussion is that like many liberal martyrs, there typically isn't a simple open/shut case in the mix. On the classified document scandal we predictably have a Washington establishment that protects people like Biden and Clinton from harsh action for complete disregard of protocol (and in Biden's case, over many years) yet prosecutes Trump with an eye toward life in prison. With the Carrol civil case, it requires the temporary reimagining of statues designed to protect the integrity of the justice system to forgo statutes and litigate issues. The Smith case leaks like a sieve. The Hur case tied up tight. Alvin Bragg launches a criminal probe that required substantial legal gymnastics to pursue, Letitia James pursues a case that flies directly in contrast with the way business is done in NYC for decades. Georgia, you have an unusually dirty bird running the show, all sorts of money changing hands, yet onward we roll. There is ample evidence that blind trust in institutions can get you killed in this country, and law enforcement has been weaponized at times against undesirables. A friend of mine is heavily involved in NYS politics, an attorney from NYC area, and he told me one time that a significant number of politicians from down that way are corrupt. You look at the stories involving Cuomo (nursing home scandal, cooked books, the SUNY Poly scandal, sexual assault), the former AG Dan Schneiderman and his dirty deeds, former Governor Elliot Spitzer...and it's really not all that big a stretch to question just about anything that comes out of DC. Whatevs.