leh-nerd skin-erd

Of course I don’t speak for @Doc, but I think he was referring to your friend.

I’m a bit confused by the back and forth here. Your liberal friend who is rooting for China, he closed a trillion dollar trade deal? Or is the trade deal you referenced between the US and India the deal you were referencing?

Whataboutisms aside, Hillary’s reckless and willful disregard for email security actually makes the point I was referring to. Important to the far right, less so to the middle, and as we moved to the left you liberals couldn’t defend her strongly enough. All told, while a significantly greater scandal than we see here, it ended with a whimper.

I think this story/non-story falls into the category where a precious few (liberal extreme lefties) care a ton, some folks will pay passing attention and not much more, and it won’t register at all for most. As you used to say, no one really cares.

Yup, next thing you know they’ll be sending armed marshals to raid the oppositions home. The good news is more than enough people saw through the scheme to influence the election, this time.

To your question, yes, apparently people who support the church and believe in God can embrace the present in spite of the actions of people from the past. I don’t really think it’s that hard for some people. I don’t know anything about the Quakers, but to the extent you found them, that’s great.

That’s the beauty of our world, boyst. Feel the way you do, and you’re certainly correct that the church has been an abject failure at times. Its created turmoil and conflict for me as I try to wrap my head around it. We were actively involved in the church, my experiences were excellent pretty much across the board. Still, the other stuff. People of faith celebrate the goodness, decency and community offered by the church, warts and all. In spite of the trauma, the Catholic faith has given joy and comfort to untold numbers of people through history. I’m glad we’re at a point where you can speak your mind in spite of how it might conflict with those who practice the religion. Besides, there isn’t any room at Del Boca Vista for you at the next Moral Compass meeting, so don’t even bother calling!!

I know we don’t always agree on issues, but I guess I can see how hurtful things being said about a candidate otherwise running a flawless, well-designed and well-executed campaign could change the trajectory of a presidential campaign. I guess I always thought the unvarnished civility of American politics was a thing of beauty, and now, this sort of ugliness rears its, uh, ugly head.

Sec Hegseth is using whataboutisms, which is most definitely problematic to some people, sometimes, on occasion. I'm told that analyzing the relative accuracy of media accounts using hindsight is bad, and everything printed by legacy media sources is always to be assumed 100% accurate...or some lady named Lara will most assuredly be looming.

Trump tells the truth at times, at others he doesn't. I have never listened to Alex Jones, and have no idea who Lara Loomer is. Maybe you have to pause, take a deep breath and reset, Karen.

Hi Mup, of course I'll send positive thoughts and prayers your way! I believe we may have disagreed about the way we view faith, but if you read me as an atheist you may be confusing me with someone else. Molly Hatchet, perhaps. I'd do the same for just about anyone, even some of the crankiest and dare I say cowardly mo'fos on this board. As for implicitly trusting mainstream, legacy media outlets, no, that's unlikely to change. I understand your concerns about the status of our government, and all that can follow is 'whataboutism', which some people believe is a bridge too far in political conversations. Unless, of course, they are doing it.

I would think we could agree that blind trust in any institution is foolish--right wing media, left wing media, any WH admin. As to your second point, I care, that's why I said it ya big dummy.

The haters in this case jump to conclusions based on initial reporting from anonymous sources, create a backstory based on circular reporting, and typically don’t want to engage in whataboutism because it reveals their own hypocrisy. They don’t want to talk about it. The questions in this case for me: 1. Can anonymous reports from liberal-leaning news sources be trusted? In response to your question, I would say…No, I would prefer to wait for additional details to come out before arriving at any conclusion as to what may/may not have happened. 2. Assuming the report is true, is there a comparable incident(s) from past admins, and in those cases, what was the administrative outcome? 3. If the report is true, what was the cause of the event? What safeguards are put in place to prevent similar occurrences in the future? With respect to being ok with it, I’d say if the reports are true, it’s sloppy. However, this is govt work, and sloppy seems pretty common there.

Sure, except technology, quantity and accessibility typically drive cost down over time. People make decisions based on their circumstances and individual value proposition. Your gall bladder scenario makes sense, but like Frank’s incessant desire for more products cheaper than the last, burning within him like an untreated STD, the question becomes when the desire for cheap ends and where the perception of value begins. People will have different opinions there. Before most people get to a gall bladder op, there are typically multiple much more mundane yet fairly expensive visits along the way. Perhaps those visits, virtually and bypassing traditional costly channels would be where one would start. I would also submit that while I see value in professional relationships, there is at least one, if not more individual out there who would likely take the gall bladder B option. To the larger point, it seems Frank to me was really just talking about consumer options by partnering with foreign nations. I’m doing the same.

I think you have to open it up beyond cheap cars and goods. Break down federal/state barriers and allow cheap legal, medical and professional services, whatever, let’s really embrace globalization. In fact, why not allow Americans an alternative to federal/state taxation? Partner with the best deal-maker in the world as it relates to the various tax schemes, and utilize rules/regulations most favorable for the circumstance, because they would be better (maybe) and far, far cheaper.

This is a winning strategy—tie the democrats to being primarily pro-open border, soft on violent crime and partnering with criminals. They will do the rest.

You’re gracious as always. Why would anyone assume that Jeffries was suggesting a trial was necessary?

I met David Paterson and his wife— I had a 45 min convo with him in his kitchen one day when he was Lt Governor. We talked about liberal v conservative principles, coming together v being at odds. I like him, and she’s very nice as well.

Rest assured if I need "simple" you'll be the first person I think of.

Thanks Frank, pretty sensible write up. Btw, for those counting, this would be our 4th liberal gov/ag involved in illegal/unseemly behavior. Sptizy goes down. Scheneiderman had heavy hands with the ladies. Cuomo does Cuomo things. Letitia says no one is above the law except her.

I agreed with you that the Admin should work to get the gangbanger back in accordance with the court order. I think that caused you to have a mini-stroke, your Mom put you and on bed rest until about an hour ago.

You’re confusing “analysis” with “conclusion” which doesn’t really surprise me. With respect to “nuance” , as I assumed, you’re an empty suit.

I included context, history and power dynamic in my analysis. Again, some things are complicated, this one is not complicated. It's unnecessary to re-litigate American history in every situation that is discussed. Someone, somewhere along the line mentioned "systemic power dynamics" and like a child drawn to a butterfly, you were captivated. As to the bolded sentence, I have no idea what you're rambling about there. Do you?

I'm not the DaVinci Code, BillSy, nor am I particularly complicated. Michael Brown was acting in a criminal manner, put himself in harms way, made some very bad decisions that lead up to his departure from this earth. When he assaulted an officer, attempted to secure his weapon, then was attempting to return to assault him again, he was shot. I don't know him, don't know his family, but the facts are pretty clear. Ashley Babbitt was acting in a criminal manner, put herself in harms way, made some very bad decisions that lead up to the departure from this earth. When the officer was concerned for his life, perhaps concerned she would assault him, he made the decision to shoot her. Those facts are pretty clear, too. The difference is in the treatment of each case from the perspective of liberal politicians and people like you. In one case, the dispatch of a criminal has you turning on police, talking about legs shots, trashing the officer doing the hard, dirty work of law enforcement. In the other, two quick thumbs up, a cursory investigation and not one word about unarmed individuals being shot. There's no kicker for me here, BillSy. I already know who you are, and how you think, and how completely full of **** you typically are.

Everyone has their blindspots and hypocrisy, but when it comes to police involved shootings, the liberals are Hellen Keller. On the one hand, you have a Michael Brown, a guy intent on ending the life of an officer and demands for civil rights investigations. You get all sorts pf platitudes---shoot 'em in the leg, etc. On the other, Ashleigh Babbit, an unarmed individual, officer shoots to kill and is cleared of any wrongdoing in what amounts to about 20 minutes. Crazy stuff.