leh-nerd skin-erd

I was going to pull a few excerpts from this manifesto on global governance forward, but there were so many options I spent more time copying and pasting than was really necessary. I think the authors could have saved a lot of paper by summarizing as follows: ”While the reputation of the United Nations has been tarnished over the decades with allegations of wanton corruption; frailty of the flesh, human trafficking and sexual exploitation, in this case, you just gotta believe us. The world is ending, had we started in earnest in 2010 things would not be so dire in 2019, and the only way to fix it is to tighten our belt. By this, we mean, we need to transform societies across the world, we need nations like the US to partner with the EU to cough up some serious money from carbon tax, the Chinese are destroying the environment, but when adjusted for economic considerations we sorta threw in there, their pollution and environmental destruction ain’t all that bad. We need Europe to outlaw the internal combustion engine, we need moratoriums on $&#@ we don’t like, we need everyone to step up to plant burgers, and whatever you think about the +/- $50b in foreign aid allocated in the budget of the US, it ain’t nearly enough, and you have a lot of nerve thinking it is”. I figure the best answer is to tell these smug prix to &$#@ off. Not sure why, but when I read it, I kept thinking the author looked like this guy.

On the whole, I feel like you may be mocking me.

People looking for some transformative social messaging when looking at a billboard of a person in their underwear is looking for something they won't find when looking at a billboard of a person in their underwear.

Look, with due respect I boycotted Golden Girls when Dorothy posed topless for Playboy, so I'm in like a mo fo.

In my defense, I recently updated my 2BD password, could not recall it, had to go back through gmail to update per Board "password recovery" process, had forgotten the gmail password that I had updated recently, recovered that password, then had to type the damn hyphens in the screen name I chose. By the time I got to typing my reply, I was emotionally drained and neglected to include womyn, I own that and try to live my truth. In other words, while I'm as inclusive as I can be, in some respects I am limited because I'm basically a moron.

I think I prefer the nitwitery of Chelsea Handler to the Taylor Swiftesque angst of Meghan McCain. She loved her father, fine, but this extended family thing is nauseating. And very little screams “I need more attention!” quite like a tweet imploring the twitter crowd to stop judging her for publicly announcing her devotion to a US Senator.

I think there is something refreshingly honest about the NFLs transparency on head-scratching, mind-numbing and soul-crushing phantom calls the day after they impact the outcome of the game.

Women women, or women who were born with non-women parts who were actually women women all along, or women born with women parts who have always been men but some might see them as women?

Really? In today's NFL, guys celebrate sacks with chest pounding celebrations often when down by 21 points. When you see the mic'd up segments the players are frequently talking back and forth. The only issue with Shaq's performance should be that his choreography channeled some alternate version of Irish step dancing, it was like watching a scene from "Riverdance" with not an Irishman in sight. McDermott is likely furious or touched by the tribute. Maybe both.

Well, you were really dumb at the time but sweet fancy Moses upon reflection you're very smart.

Yes, and Yes. And you?

It seems to me that journalists/reporters are all about breaking news, rarely about the impact on individuals, businesses and families. At the same time, they seem to be, on occasion, some of the softest people in the world.

“If you are innocent, acquiesce and you have nothing to fear.” Regards, Every Dem-Lib mouthpiece since 2016

To quote Allen Jackson: I'm just a singer of simple songsI'm not a real political manI watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell youThe diff'rence in Iraq and IranBut I know Jesus and I talk to BobAnd I remember this from when I was youngFaith, hope, and love are some good things He gave usAnd the greatest is love

I met with a gentleman yesterday nearing the end of his life due to pancreatic cancer. He was a pretty big guy in his prime, not so much anymore, told me the pain was very bad. We’ve lost family members to it, and it is a bad, bad road.

When you think about it, a lot of the good Tom’s are dead. Jefferson, Clancy...Petty. Heck I even think McAn has kicked off.

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.