leh-nerd skin-erd

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.

You ask too much when you ask people to trust you. From my perspective: 1. Your view on HRC as The Good Princess of the North disqualifies you as trustworthy in the political arena. 2. Your decision to actively seek out those with different political views with an eye toward demanding comeuppance and apologies for excersizing their right to vote disqualifies you as trustworthy in the political arena. 3. You seem to be implying that as a federal employee, you've witnessed first hand a number of "boondoggles", likely have written them off as just a byproduct of the federal system you work for and benefit from. For reasons you and you alone know, you see this particular boondoggle as extraordinary, and the particular boondoggle is by most accounts overtly political. Since you have self-identified as a Democrat, and I do not, it makes no sense whatsoever to trust you in this regard. 4. You have mentioned several times the point about "Mexico paying for the wall". This seems to be where you have decided to plant your flag, and it seems an odd place to do so. Those of us who support the Presidents efforts understand the complexity behind the word track used, even as you do not. Additionally, given 250 years of American political theater, it seems a weak place to make your stand. I won't bore you (further) by linking to statements/positions by politicians that were proven false, misleading or hypocritical, some even by your Dems. This alone disqualifies you from being someone I can trust to consider my best interests politically. 5. You have referred to 60+ million people as "lemmings". This statement alone disqualifies you as someone I might ever trust for political advise or discourse. To summarize, you seem to be an insider comfortable with boondoggles and waste so long as you benefit, your opinion is guided by your political ideaology, you feel you have the right to demand folks with different opinions conform to your world view, and that those who do not are of low moral character. You greatly respect a candidate who referred to citizens who disagreed with her politically in that odd sort of Stalin-esque fashion as "deplorable" and "irredeamable". No sir, you cannot be trusted.

You're suggesting the old criss-cross? She's the target, but ends up killing him? That actually sounds like empowerment. Now I don't know what to think .

Oh hell no!

Fall person. Women can be set up, targeted and killed in a random robbery where nothing is taken just like a man can. It's 2018, you knuckle dragging neandrathal.

This is the amazing part to me, a revelation on how you see the world. If you see hrc as the bomb-diggity, above reproach, a humble public servant looking only to serve, I can understand that. There was a time I thought OJ Simpson was an amazing guy. There are likely still people out there who think that, and in some crazy real life version of The Matrix, we all process what we see/hear/experience through our own prism. But, with due respect, the government represents a corporate structure the likes of which the the most power hungry oligarch could only dream of. Unlimited resources. The power to create regulations that are both self-sustaining and lead to growth. A benefit structure designed by itself, that answers to no one but itself, with the power to increase benefits as it sees fit. The power to seize assets, fine individuals and corporations, the right of eminent domain, and the power to imprison those it disagrees with. The power to creare currency, and to manipulate it as they see fit. The offer of virtually cradle to grave entitlements for those in the inner circle. The ultimate franchise fee-- the ability to tax. The power to design and fund it's own security force. And so on. Government is necessary, important, and decent in many ways. However, IBM, General Electric and Colonel $#@@ing Sanders would kill to possess 1/1000th of the power of the govt.

I knew it was beyond you. That was clear to me given the premise of your post, and your impulse to demand accoutability to those not accountable to you. One of the great things I was taught was to recognize and understand that people have limitations. Your limitation is that you think your opinion matters more than it does , and that the only reasonable sequence in the world is that if EiI thinks it, everyone else must surely follow or they were not raised correctly, or that someone failed mighty big. I am greatful that I am not so burdened. Nice talking to you,, and while it's not my business to worry about someone else's business, I thought you did the right thing apologizing to DR.

Someone always sees a dangerous demagogue in that capacity, it's the nature of the business. Nothing here makes you all that special in that regard. You'll be fine. It's a ways out, but unless something drastic happens before 2020 I'll be voting my conscience again.

"Own their mistakes"? What does that mean, and why would you care?

A. I thought maybe I was getting a "••••• off" ?; B. I left that "Doc Brown" thought hanging a bit. I think he's a great poster and read his thoughts when I can. I respect his perspective and his demeanor even when I think hes misguided. I was trying to make a point that Doc B respectfully comes here to a place where many support what Trump (and the Trump supporters range from those who detest Trump as a human being but support some of his positions to those 100% behind Trump). That was a point I clearly botched and in the calm after I wrote it, I'm not sure why I felt I needed to include that. $#@@ing New England games always scramble my brains. I know what's coming, I've seen it live, on the television, in bars, listened on the radio and it always takes me a day to recover. To summarize: Doc good, others bad.

I think you have to consider the mindset of a poster like Doc Brown, and juxtapose it with some of the others that post here. DB seems to come here with a different perspective than most on the Trump side of things (ranging from those who seem to detest him but support the general concepts he stands for to hardcore Trump supporters), offers opinions and provides feedback. Some others come by, take a few shots, dish out a few shots, but post how they feel and move on. Then there are a precious few who must be dealing with some legitimate sad #$$ stuff to enjoy actively seeking this place out, offering literally nothing of value, who get a charge out of sending garbage similar to what you'd hear in a middle school gym, and only then with the requisite numbers of like-minded morons by their side. In that regard, anonymous posting gives them an outlet. Maybe that's not all bad. My guess is that for every visit here, there are multiple visits to unrelated message boards, same tired commentary, same faux incendiary language.

The issue can be summed up by some of the drops/misses/fumbles by Bills receiver, and Edleman rollng over two Bills defenders and staying with the play to score a td. NE makes those plays with regularity ..our guys drop balls that hit them in the hands on a regular basis. And yes, a ball will hit Gronk and be picked off on occasion, or Burkhead will fumble after a run, but it's not at all expected to be the norm. In Buffalo, the Croom fumble represents the type of play we are really, really good at.

You'd normally go with the kid from the Bronx, but she's actually from Yorktown. On the other hand, Ivanaka was born into a wealthy family, and you can"t discount the silver spoon effect in a street fight. Either way, there is something for everyone and this could help to heal this great nation.

You still get to sit on the winners couch, but down near the end with the bad TV angle and the third cousin with the pants pulled way up high.