leh-nerd skin-erd

Who is doing the questioning today? The left or the far left? I can't see a difference.

If you're speaking generally, every president can be charged for "it" when they leave office. The dead ones are probably safe, but what about Gerald Ford?

Scott Norwood? You hurtful b$st@rd.

The fact that he was surprised instead of embarrassed beyond his liberal senses for objectifying and fondling women shows he should not be a US Senator. Of course, he be perfect for VP role in. Warren/Franken 4evA

the irony here is that as good, God-fearing people that live by The Word, your in-laws are likely praying for an end to the bigotry you hold in your heart. stop bogarting the prayers.

Thanks for the breakdown. Would you say the racists are evenly spread out amongst the various departments, or is one more race-o-centric than the rest?

If she came from a non-express lane I think I'm going to rule in his favor..... On the other hand, a pregnant lady has 15 items in a 12er and you're getting into an argument about it? Jesus there are some crazies out there.

Agreed, no one involved is John From Nevada, or Cindy from Kalamazoo. They are political creatures, each side dishing out heat that gets folks riled up because they knit together backstories based on their own biases. Who cares, really? You, maybe, but you're a bit of a contortionist anyway. I always wondered where the outrage was when Obama made elitist comments about middle America, when Hillary lead off her debate with accusations of racism and a myriad of phobias the future President was alleged to have had. Did you struggle with any of that? Or when Obama went after Fox News for about a decade, and issues with that? If you did, good for you for your consistency and character. If not, I'll write it off to other folks just being human. On the Russia investigation, you've been guarded in your reply, or at least seem to be to me. On the one hand, you see nothing nefarious, which I'm taking to mean that you felt the investigation was warranted, the surveillance/unmasking warranted, the SC investigation warranted, and the outcome fair. On the other hand, you mentioned that you felt it was a waste of time, which seems contradictory to it being a very reasonable investigation. I cant see how it would be a waste of time if it was warranted, after all, we're talking about a pres under the spell of a Russian strongman. Then, on the third hand (we'll call it the Chernobyl hand to keep with the theme), you toss in something about those that broke the law should go to jail. Where does that come from in a non-nefarous clandestine investigation into a president? So many questions. Edit: oh, and who was the root cause of the divisiveness you mentioned last post?

I don't necessarily feel better or worse, I already know how I feel. What I don't understand is how you can write off a massive plot to unseat a president, using intelligence as a weapon, using the resources of federal and state government to overthrow the president as something as benign as some folks are just "human". At least, I can't reconcile you writing all that sh8t off just as people being people and then get all uppity about another human just doing human things like tweeting. Come to think of it, why do we prosecute spies? Robert Hanseen, for example. I'll run the checklist: A. American; B. Human; C. Didn't like something; D. Definitely less divisive than Trump and Obama. What was the fuss?

Hmm. "Divisive waste of time"? Interesting choice of words. You "think" Trump did not collude with Russia--would you go so far as to say you "know" he didn't collude (given 3 yrs, 30m Muller Muller Muller) with Russia? Let's agree that this is not "swear on pain of death know", just "based on the information readily available after Muller tore #@$% up asked. "Divisive" on the part of whom? Trump has been crystal clear since day 1. There has been no wavering, no cracks in the foundation of defense, no negotiation to make it all go away. I don't think you can consider a guy accused of treason to be divisive when he's defending himself against false charges as being divisive? So...divisive on the part of the dems/libs/media? If so, was it intentional on the part of the dems? Divide a nation by attacking the integrity of our elections? Divisive to impact the agenda of the duly elected president? To harm him, politically and perhaps...personally? It's hard to imagine calling someone out as essential a traitor might not have some fallout. What about the potential nullification of my vote, when he's hampered by this massive inquiry? "Waste of time"? I'd argue the dems/enemies of the people would not consider it a waste of time at all to wage a divisive psychological war against a stirring president. Certainly it would impact the admin and likely did the midterms. And I could be reading too much into what you're saying, but "waste of time" on this level implies to me incompetence by the DOJ and Obama admin on an epic scale, or something much more nefarious? How on earth could the intelligence community so misread the tea leaves that were so obvious they felt they had to detonate a bunker buster under the new admin---knowing the polarizing and paralyzing effect it would have---and be so wrong about it? How do you see it?

Add "guilt" to that recipe and you have a winner. Fear and Guilt.

140 years of "hard data"?? Come on, even you can't believe that. We're a nation where a massive attack on our citizenry and infrastructure was carried out less than 20 years ago with a handful of boxcutters. You would trust "climate data" from the Wright Brother's neighbor Svenn Roker?

Why are you raging at chefs? They deliver delectable culinary delights to people of all ages. Sure, you get a hair in the potato soup every now and again but it averages out.

Thanks for looking out for me, but you should know a while back I chose a doctor who happened to be Muslim as my GP, and I've never been afraid of spiders. I consider them nature's housekeepers. Btw, the doc, a nice guy who left private practice a while back, used to share some stories about Afghanistan, his upbringing and the devastation to his county. I always enjoy hearing about other cultures as it helps me to recognize how similar many of us are. Anyway, I had a nasty infection in my finger, I went to see him and his initial response was "We have to deal with this today. I must warn you, this will not be unpainful.". I processed that and asked "You're saying it's going to hurt?" and his reply was "Yes, quite badly.". Still makes me laugh and he spoke the truth. Facsists are people too.

Wtf Koko stop responding to me. I'm a trump supporter so I'm a fascist right wing narcissist, increasingly filled with self-loathing.

I didn't know that. I guess we have to be outraged at WNY specifically, at least in general terms.

Tell me you didn't just use an offensive term misappropriated in a 50s era sitcom where the occupying villain was portrayed as a noble hero and the native son a subservient second fiddle in a serious conversation about racism in America? I am renaming you go Beginner Enabler.

I'm not looking to be adversarial, but take this for what you consider it worth: You are 100%, almost inconceivably, wrong about what he says and how often he says it. I would attribute that to listening only to voices that sound like yours, or the fact that you're my old buddy Smitty the practical joker. His approval rating is impacted in large part because there is a chorus of voices screaming in unsion "JOKE", then "RACIST" then "SEXUAL PREDATOR", then "TAX CHEAT" then "TREASON" then "OBSTRUCTOR" and now back "SEXUAL PREDATOR". All of this, btw, wrapped up in the theory that he can't stay on message. Soundbite tyranny. And, imo, I think of people like you as "extended warranty" voters, buying what's sold without even questioning the cost or the value of the purchase. That last part probably sounds adversarial, but it isn't. Some people find comfort in the extended warranty. Btw--on my comment on soundbites, I get the argument that Trump causes some of that. I don't disagree, my point is only that is not ALL he does.

So much so, his chosen, can-t-miss-heiress-apparentess is resting comfortably after a coughing fit, with her legs up in Chappaqua, and the voters sent his nemesis to the White House to place his legacy achievements in the dumpster. He trashed 45 (then, of course, known only as the guy BO said would never be president), but when you send boatloads of cash to your buddies who blow up people, you lose some credibility.

That's a hot take and if it turns out you are correct, I'll be the first to put my hand out and say "Geesh, didn't see that coming.". Thereafter, I have to support a bogus investigation into your candidate crossing the Peace Bridge and not declaring 3 bags of fruit at Customs and applaud while your candidate is mired in bullshyt all while screaming "IF SHE'S INNOCENT SHE SHOULD BE HAPPY TO BE INVESTIGATED BY THE FBI/CIA AND NSA!". The fact is no policy details are released or batted about on the debate stage, ever. Let me be clear....O...O...Obama was very polished at delivering nothing, W not so much, and Trump obviously repeating the same thing 4 times in exactly the same thing. He's great, lots of people say it, they say that he's great. On the other hand, as of right now, and it can change--Trump can speak on his accomplishments that include the economy, consumer confidence, employment numbers for Americans across the board, tax cuts, repatriation of $$$ and investment by companies like Apple due to changes in tax code, the strengthening of the SC and federal court system, his attempts to return some semblance of control to the Southern Border with a do-nothing Dem house, his experience with NATO, and at the same time, point to the dems pattern of dirty tricks: The Russia hoax/debacle coup attempt. He will hammer this hard, often and rightly so. He will point to the many tentacles from Obama on down that trafficked in illegal surveillance, unmasking and weaponization of our once trusted intelligence/law enforcement agencies and the need to continue to clean out that part of the swamp. It will get ugly, and up until now it's been a picnic. Kavanaugh visciously attacked simply because he's a conservative white male, makes you wonder when they are coming for you next. All their hands are dirty there, none more so than Harris. The desperation of the homeless in places like California, the high tax rate doing nothing to cure it, all brought to you by the elitist dem platform before it's even gone full batshit crazy socialist. When all is said and done, he has plenty to talk about, you just might not be willing to listen. In fact, he has a slate of positive and uplifting data to speak on, juxtaposed to the dem message despair, anger and divisiveness that ONLY a 70% tax rate and health care for those here in violation of our laws paid for by the heartland can solve. That's not your IRA, someone else deserves that.

Anything can happen between now and then. Personally I believe nothing until it's done. The polls, to my recollection, reflected a Hillary sweep into office, projecting both the prom queen vote and EC outcome. Certainly the analysis by the experts reflected that. I can't recall any analysis that suggested anything close to HC popular vote +3m but Trump takes the EC by 10pm on election night. Still, the dem front runner has yet to be determined and most of the fur flying has come from other dems. That changes at some point, and like trump, every candidate has warts. In other words, the current status quo is akin to all of the dems standing together at the edge of an ice cold pool on a hot summer day, each teasing the other to jump in first. When it goes national, well, the parallel is there are only two people left, and someone tosses a chainsaw into shark-filled water and one or the other has to get to it first to start the cutting. We shall see. Oh, and the wild card STILL remains that Trump has unrestricted access to all the secrets in the world, with the power to release/leak selectively.

Oh, and come to think of it. Was the Challenger disaster a successful failure as it included women, or just a partial success because many of those died were Male?

In fairness, breasts are pretty cool.

Issue #1. The ladies in question are politicians, and say inflammatory things that most people would not say to friends and neighbors. As I stated earlier, these are not ladies at a Dairy Queen eating Peanut Buster Parfaits singled out for random commentary. They are politicians skilled in the art of rhetoric. We agree on this? 2. As for your apology, it has been said that all white men look alike, and Tucker Carlson & Donald J. Trump are white men, so I can see where the confusion arises. I accept your apology though none was necessary.

Correct, he said nothing like that. You stitched in the rest because for reasons known only to you and perhaps your hot yoga instructor, that's the way your mind works. The fact that other people share your tendency to stitch in a similar fashion makes it no more/less truthful than anything else. To boot, he did not tweet about 4 random people sitting on a bench outside a mall, he tweeted about political adversaries who do their own share of crap-throwing, and in some cases label their opponents in very harsh terms. I'd think we could agree the rules are different for those in that realm?