leh-nerd skin-erd

One of the things that I find irritating about news/entertainment anchors/reporters is when the reporting turns to stories about "shaming" and ageism. I'm not debating it happens, but one of THE most important entries on a resume for jobs of that nature is "look great on camera". So, to be in the position to be a victim of ageism, you had to look substantially better than the average person to begin with. So...while looks matter, it's often only offensive when looks matter later.

I didn't watch this when it originally aired, so I wasn't aware that she was referring to the "tippy top" of income when she spoke of taxation, like the ten millionth dollar and stuff. This is a game changer. We need to get serious with this taxy waxy program shes talking about. She's #4ReelZ.

I took the liberty of borrowing Philly's Secret Lib Decoder Ring/Dog Whistle and applied it to your comments. If I used it correctly you actually meant: "Some good people are all bad"; or "THE DINGOS ATE ME BABY!" (emphasis added).

WALL Street? Exclusionary.

The people impacted by illegal immigration---those on both sides of the border--be it by trafficking, assault, death, etc are simply political capital to many of our elected leaders. The lives lost and families devastated are simply collateral damage. In that regard, nothing has really changed. Of course, the economic impact of 10-30m people here under the radar, the strain on our entitlement programs, medical and education institutions etc is a massive problem as well. Bottom line, and its not just a democrat problem, is that politicians barter with welfare of the country for power and money.

Or at least figure out what your convictions are, and stop acting like the moral majority when you achieve something, and a rock star groupie when you want something.

This kid is a former 2nd round draft choice who plays hard, loves the energy of the team and the fans, and the coaches want him here. He showed us some good stuff, we should all be hoping they can work out a deal to keep him here.

I boldfaced “promoted” because Romney has unwittingly provided the devastating argument against his style of Republicanism. Yes, it is quite true that nearly all Republican presidential candidates—and presidents—have promoted tax reform, lower regulation, getting tough with China, and appointing better judges (and add in moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem), if by “promoted” you mean giving lip service to the ideas. None of them have delivered on these “promoted” ideas (Reagan excepted, of course). The two presidents Bush botched judicial appointments, extended regulation, delivered little in the way of serious tax or spending reform, and did nothing serious with regard to China. I wish Romney had defeated Obama in 2012, but does anyone think this Massachusetts technocrat, who gave us the state-level version of Obamacare in the Bay State, signed up for a regional climate change cap-and-trade scheme, who appointed the egregious Gina McCarthy (Obama’s second EPA administrator) to be his environmental adviser, and appointed state judges who struck the first judicial blows for same-sex marriage, would have governed as a serious conservative had he won? The point is, Trump has proved that “mainstream Republicanism” was a colossal failure. Whereas Bush-Romney Republicans “promoted” good ideas, Trump has delivered on them. I’ll restate once again that I think Trump is, in Wall Street terms, a “high-beta presidency”—high risk, high reward. I wish he was more prudent and measured in the fights he picks and how he conducts himself. He remains his own worst enemy. I fear Trump’s presidency could end disastrously for conservatism. But in the meantime he has mounted the most vigorous challenge to liberalism of anyone since Reagan, under much more difficult political circumstances. We know what we’re going to get from Trump. From Romney, Jeb Bush, or John Kasich, we have no such confidence. Romney should just get to work at being a good senator, and stop the posturing. Or to paraphrase Don Rumsfeld’s most famous remark, we have to go into political battle with the president we have, rather than the president we wish he had. . . This is a good piece and spot on. When taken in context with his "Hate Trump, Love Trump, Hate Trump, Hey Trump will you buy me a milkshake at the local soda shop??", Romney is just a guy who seems to be unsure who he should try and keep happy. Taken in the context of letting Obama off the mat when he was vulnerable, he's just another R loser who panders to the libs. Dems will savage him for his waffling on Trump and everything else, and Trump will make them look like they went easy on him.

interesting you mentioned lizards. There are several species of lizards that are asexual, the mighty Komodo dragon being one. The ability to create offspring via parthenogenesis seems not unlike your ability to create the self-sustaining arguments you espouse here. As for 9/11, I would go with [al-Qaeda] and feel comfortable that while the true answer is quite complex, I would be accurate enough to prevail on jeopardy. Anyway, back to the point, and thanks for making it again this evening. If something is not "worth reading", why invest the time to comment about it? On that note, I'll consider this matter closed. good day, beginnersmind/beginnersmindbot.

You don't have to point anything out to me, I can read. This is kind of my point. Of late, you type one of 4 variations of your basic argument (There is no deep state, there is no deep state, Trump is bad, and Trump is bad) but offer nothing else of value. In that regard, it's actually pretty funny as you laugh off the very notion of a bureaucratic conspiracy while getting all emotionally liquored up on the Trump/Russia conspiracy fomenting in your brain. Meanwhile, right/wrong/good/bad/or crazy...DR provides articles, research, deep dives in support of his position all while encouraging all to make up their own mind. Again, he might be crazy...why do you care? At this point, it seems to me you spend most of your time sniffing around every post like a desperate Puget Sound Deb looking to land a naval aviator.

It's getting creepy, you following behind him with those baby eyes in the internet version of a VW microbus yelling for him to pay attention to you.

Hmm, you sound like that TV psychologist...what's his name.. Oh yeah. Dr. Swill.

Not fair---I would have said it had I known it was going to happen. Agree with all else, and well worth the ejection.

This is the price of living life on the lam, never sleeping in the same place twice, joyriding from state to state knocking over gas stations and liquor stores along the way. I respect you paying taxes though! This whole tax issue is indeed a red herring. The simple fact is if the IRS/state tax agency accepts the return the matter is closed. If there is audit and adjustment, it is what it is. I'm a believer that instead (or in addition to) of a push for tax returns, I'd like to see estate/tax plans for our dear leaders. I'd enjoy looking through the plan of, say my Mario Cuomo, and his son Andrew. Load up Barrack and Michelle while we're at it, and for kicks, every wealthy "activist" should pony theirs up to. The real transfer of wealth to avoid taxation happens there.

I'd have been ok with no penalty if they would have called one of the two calls on the Allen pass into the end zone late in the game. Seemed fairly obvious holding around the 5, followed up with def pass interference in the end zone. They can't see everything but for the love of the game toss a flag on a potential game changing play. On on the other hand it saved the pain of watching the Bills go up by...say 2, a wtf safety that starts with a play from our 35, and a pats return with 14 seconds left in overtime. Or, pretty much anything else.

Democrat..Blue States... Transformer...Blows Blue... Stormy Daniels...Blew Trump... There is a connection here. I don't know what it is yet, but this cannot be a coincidence.

You're spot on, and the folks who come here to suggest you're a conspiracy theorist are often the same ones who espouse the "You're getting all your news from Fox.". Typically, that opinion has been derived from listening to some other person or politician espousing the view that Fox offers a particular slant on on the news. At a minimum, the media does not offer an holistic view of current events. The recent mash up video of news anchors using the same word tracks for the same issues reveals a coordinated, corporate approach to the marketing of "news". I watched an NBC news anchor recently speaking about market volatility take a pregnant pause (Toastmasters 101), and remark "if my memory is correct, the market moved in a similar fashion in 2008 just before....". Certainly possible he's a market guy and closely followed the key economic data just prior to the last big financial crisis, equally likely the team behind the scenes was prepping him on what to say and how to say it. The goal is to look conversational, but it's not. I find the old adages to be as true today as they were a hundred years ago. Nothing happens until someone buys something that someone else is selling. The seller almost always has a plan, a bias, a point of view and it would be foolish to assume otherwise. And you're spot on as well that while the average journalism student may not have a preconceived plan to offer slanted or biased news (one way or the other), there are realities to life. You have to work, you have to eat, and if the company says you write about police brutality because it sells...you do what you have to do. There's a story making the rounds about a hs wrestler who had to cut his hair prior to stepping on the mat, the ref ruling that the length of his hair violated the rules. The outcry over this senseless act of racial bias (the ref white, the wrestler black) was intense, with photos of the ref broadcast on the piece, and the revelation that he used a racial slur directed at another ref a few years ago. The story was woefully lacking in context. The reporter mentioned that the wrestler had previously wrestled without incident, and they showed a clip of him getting his hair lopped off matside. The thing is, there are rules about hair length, hair covering, skin checks, weigh ins etc. It is also a fact that different refs handle things differently, some are detail oriented, some are not. Some are friendly, others not. I can think of a hundred variations of this story where a wrestler could be portrayed as the victim, but the one thing that really bothered me was how this young man ended up mattside getting his hair chopped just before he wrestled. Virtually everything that happened usually happens well before the match so there are no surprises. Turns out this young man was late for weighins/skin check/hair and length of fingernails but that was not included in the initial report. Here's my point--the story implies racial bias and civil rights violations, and it's possible the official targeted the kid. However, context is extremely important as to how this all played out, because the implication was the guy walked up and chopped the kid's hair off for no apparent reason...with his coach standing by not uttering a word of protest. Wrestling coaches tend to be fairly tough guys, why was he silent? To boot, the official drooped a racial slur on another ref a few years back and was allowed to continue working around kids as an official? How big a story is that? It was either lousy reporting by a major network, devoid of context that is easy enough to gather by having a 5 minute conversation with a wrestling coach, or it was deliberately reported in such a way as to portray one victim and one really bad guy. I feel like if you're willing to destroy a persons life, but trim the story for maximum effect, you're reporting what basically amounts to manipulated news.

I have never been there, or met him, but I always respect a true believer in a sea of heathens. Love the bandwagon story, funny as hell and the type of humor you expect from a Bills fan. God bless.

Herr Oberfuhrer Merkel is das benevolent. The last time a German leader wanted one big happy, enslaved, submissive family roughly 90 million people died. This way, she cuts out the middle man and the rest of us go straight to lying supine at the feet of the globally enlightened. It's been less than 75 years since the end of WW2. Men, women and children sacrificed everything they had and it's lather, rinse, and repeat with a slighty different shampoo. Unf$#!ingbelievable.

You're left to wonder what might happen to someone being investigated by the FBI for wrongdoing once they found out he had accidentally deleted 750,000 + characters (assumes average text of 40 characters) that might be germane to the investigation.

Them. You included "more or less unfit", "moron or something like that" and parlayed that into what seems to be an attack on Sarah Sanders. There is some recent historical precedence here as it relates to Sec of Defense taking shots at the former boss. As an aside, it seems to me a guy like Mattis would have no problem taking Trump on directly is he felt it was warranted. Part of his resignation included suggesting the president should have someone who aligns with his vision. That sounds reasonable enough to me. Seems to be the nature of being president. I would consider anything that came out, but my first question is always "Is there an axe to grind?".

Boy goes to game, boys acts the fool, girl intercedes to help boy when he blows are being rained upon him, girl gets tossed into seat, boy gets tossed over the railing, boy and girl sue because they are actually civil rights activists. An American love story if I ever heard one.

What is it with this guy and fish? I feel like I'm dealing with Luca Brazzi here.

But you were the one who suggested that you should be trusted when you said "Trust me...". I've lived, I've learned and I ask questions. I just can't square your answers to reality. For what it's worth, i can't order coffee in under 20 words.

I never claimed i was not an idiot.