leh-nerd skin-erd

It’s telling of course that our education system in some cases leaves this sort of education out of the curriculum.

My wife started her business in the early 90s and would have qualified as a MBE had such things been around, or had they been around, had she known about such things. I think sensible programs operated by professionals, with mentors to guide, coach and encourage make an awful lot of sense in moderation. The challenges can be that like anything else, power can corrupt, insiders can benefit to the detriment of those in need, and those who operate inside government entities often have very little real world business acumen. Not always, and certainly not exclusively….but it’s interesting to me that in many cases, municipal/state government(s) are at least somewhat responsible for erecting the barriers to entry. I’ve also worked with a few individuals who took advantage of local business incubators. I love the idea.

I wasn’t knocking that thought process, Doc, I just disagree that it matters to any degree. I think people vote on matters that impact them at home, not dog and pony shows and moderators that seem to have their thumb on the scale. Biden showed us, as does Harris, that running a non-traditional campaign where you hide from any real scrutiny can work fine. As for missed opportunities, there certainly is that. However, if upon consideration of strengths/weakness of the candidate, perhaps Trump feels it plays to her strengths and not his. Why do that given he’s already done two debates? Btw, your thoughts on a debate with “fair” moderators spells out the reason that I think, generally, people don’t vote based on debate performance. Besides, if an independent witnessed a debate that revealed the network and moderators were unfair, biased etc and voted in spite of that, I’d question how independent they are to begin with. You could be right, of course. We’ll see.

Let it go, Irv. Trump has debated the chosen candidate of the Democrat party 2x in 60 days. He lost one. He won one. The people who post here are going to trend partisan with the occasional center left or center right participant. Biden virtually imploded in the first debate Trump participated in, had he stayed in the race, I would think every poster here on the left would have cast a vote for him regardless. Trump had a bad day the other day, it's not changing any poster who supported Trump the day before. I'd think most people realize that debates are largely an exercise in political gasbaggery. As Frankish routinely suggests on issues, no one really cares, and I'd be hard-pressed to think any independent considering Trump would refuse to vote for him because he skipped debating a dem for the third time. Btw, in that regard, I would humbly suggest that Trump focus specifically on that issue--that the dems created a sh*tshow on rolling with Biden when he clearly was well past the expiration date, that Harris was complicit in covering up the true nature of Biden's decline out of her own self-interest, and that it was a complete abdication of true leadership. @Doc Brown, a reasonable enough poster, mentioned the other day it gives the appearance of cowardice. I understand that may be the perspective of some, but l don't see it that way. He's done two debates. He was nearly assassinated in a scenario so confoundingly improbable it almost seems it had to be an inside job (and I don't think it was, but any movie plot in the scenario given would be laughed at in the theater as completely implausible), stood up, defied the shooter and has simply kept moving right along. Consider, too, that Harris has avoided any significant press conference and sit down with media members, not unlike Biden in 2020. Her one foray into the public eye had her sitting down for a friendly interview with a guy who really could have been her beloved grandad helping her make the case that she deserves a job she's applying for. So, Trump takes a tactical cue from the dems and makes his case based on the debates he's participated in. If the dems wanted three debates, perhaps they and Harris shouldn't have propped up Glass Joe the first time around. This is about the independents, and the Harris-Biden record over the past several years. It's going to be interesting.

Here’s the thing. No one owes you an explanation or to seek your approval on the morality grift you want to run with. That you think it’s incumbent on Trump supporters to meet your arbitrary Andy-Standard reveals a lot more about you than them. I’ve discussed an engaged on issues I have with Trump multiple times. On the whole, it’s hard to find many of you offering a whole lot of deep dive into the Biden/Harris dem platform. That’s because you’re as partisan, worship the ticket and the politics as much as any moderate Trump supporter in the country. Here, we see the double dip. You have the vapors over distrust in the media, while complaining about media sources that don’t meet the Andy-Standard. You think that makes you objective, I think that makes you naive and more than a tad myopic. Onto “…if a dem did this…”, we don’t have to guess how you would respond. Some variation of “slippage”, “special rules for elected”, “a kindly elderly man who forgets things”, “our guy groped but did it nicely” “…no reasonable prosecutor…”, “sure his family corp has pretty obvious ties to China but that’s not at all uncommon” and whatever variation of slop you’ll be offered and accept. In others words, Andy, you’re just another partisan in a sea of partisans.

That emoji you’re using to represent yourself doesn’t have a lazy eye. You may be a false advertiser. Rosa Parks is a civil rights icon, and displayed incredible courage during a very tenuous time on our history. Her act of bravery, however, does not negate not is it at odds with an act of respect to the family of a fallen soldier decades later in a completely unrelated event. Plus Scrappy says you’re deflecting.

That’s the allegation, and yet the Army has indicated that no charges are necessary. With respect to showing up, meeting with the family and honoring their request—even if misguided, is the ultimate sign of respect even if other veterans disagree, as some surely will.

Whether this played out as alleged is hard to say. However, he took the time to go to the cemetery, meet with the family of fallen soldiers and apparently honored their wish for a photograph. While apologies may be in order here—I’m not certain a candidate or president could show more respect.

"Nah..nah..nah...just ho-ho-hold on a second..." ----Barrack Obama You suggested "imagine" as if JB was beyond reproach on this topic. and I simply pointed out no imagination was necessary. Speaking of Barrack, 'member when the ambassador and security team were murdered in Benghazi and BO ran with the explanation that some poor b*stard desecrated the Koran and riled the locals? Pure respect. So, let's recap. Biden is incredibly disrespectful to the family of fallen soldiers who perished due to his chaotic withdrawal...that's all good?

Yeah, imagine. https://abcnews.go.com/International/gold-star-mother-bidens-conduct-dignified-transfer-ceremony/story?id=102885936 Three days after the bombing, the remains of all 13 service members arrived at Dover Air Force Base for the dignified transfer ceremony, where President Joe Biden was there to greet the families. Instead of feeling comforted, all three mothers described feeling disrespected. "The administration didn't seem to know our story," Shamblin said. "They didn't seem to know Nicole's name, our names. People from the military certainly knew our story, Nicole's name, our names. And that was expressed to us in a way that felt very genuine and loving. But when it came to the people in suits, it felt disingenuous and hollow."

Ah, like that kid in “The Sixth Sense”. He saw debt people.

That could be your perspective, sure. That’s the beauty of it all—one person makes his/her mind up based on their experience/view of the world—what they are certain is true, another sees things differently.

“Nobody” and “nothing” are a substantial overstatement. If you’re of the mind that everything reported is accurate and that members of the MSM are above reproach, you will most definitely encounter people who disagree with you.

I wasn’t trying to trick you, I gave you the answer to this question. Definitely stay with simple, Scraps.

Steve Scalise. Rand Paul. Gabby Gifford. The rhetoric is increasingly ratcheted up, and you would not find me within a mile of rallies, polling places or campaign headquarters. On the other hand, I get along quite well with people I interact with, share my thoughts if it goes that way, accept the thoughts of others and move on. But sincere respect to you for your involvement and fighting the good fight.

There was that general population guy shot at a political rally last month. He died. Three others wounded. It wasn’t on the news. Hush hush.

I’m not so sure, seems more like he’s playing both sides of the fence. Where was the transparency when he felt like he was being bullied by the feds when it happened? He has one of the largest platforms in the world, why keep all this hidden? Another thing—-where was the reliable MSM on all this in real time? They had no sources at the government level, FBI or Facebook? None? Zero? Zilch?

The problem with trying to find your way out of confusion is that confusion can be confusing. I understood what you were attempting to say yesterday, as I do today. What you see as 'calling someone out' I just see as dialogue. Your version makes it sound a bit more dramatic, like something one might see on reality tv. To me, it's just a conversation on the internet, not the war of words between the Earp/Clanton factions that lead to the shootout at OK Corral. Either way, have a good day.

A response providing clarity on issues that seemed to confuse you, and providing a response you disagree with isn’t deflection, it’s dialogue. I’m sorry for you that you don’t understand the difference. I’ve explained my thoughts with respect to the Kennedy Sibs, and the family generally. You’ve shared yours. There is nothing at all wrong with sharing thoughts on hypocritical behavior on a message board, it’s very common in politics, inter and intra-party. Happens all the time. I’m not sure why you’re struggling with that.

Agreed--welcome back @Starr-Bills.

Um, it's X, boomer. Maybe update the rolodex?

I think you're confused on the subject matter and the original conversation. L Ron suggested ghosts of Kennedy past would spit on him, and later, physically assault him. Since it's a hypothetical discussion, it's fair to assume he might be right. Maybe they spit on him, maybe they drag him out behind the library in Newport and beat the snot out of him. Illegal and boorish behavior is nothing new to the family, though they seem to rally around one another (mostly). I opined that the Kennedy's have a penchant for keeping in-house squabbles in-house. I don't think that is a hypothetical, but maybe they run to the Enquirer all the time and I just haven't seen it. That lead to additional dialogue and I offered that RFK Sr might well set the Betrayal 5 straight on how family business should be settled. That is a guess on my part, there's no way to know. On all the rest, RFK Jr ran for President as an Independent, decided to discontinue his campaign and chose to support DJT. He has addressed his reasons for doing so. I wasn't planning on casting a vote for RFK Jr, he seems a little kooky to me, so your recitation of beliefs is wasted on me. If you have an issue with political enemies becoming political allies, you should read more. It's pretty common. If you have issues with RFK Jr that you feel he needs to hear, head over to the CVS and buy a "Hey You Hurt Me" card and drop it off at the post office. I do like the potential for the alliance to move some voters from left to right. We'll see.

The democrat establishment had election malfeasance teed up in the event the election went the wrong in 2020. Significant warnings on the safety and security of the system were raised, and followed on baseless and manufactured claims of the illegitimacy of the 2016 campaign. That’s the world we live in.

“Own the libs” is just more projection on your part. I’m here to talk, have a laugh or two, and discuss something of interest to me. You get yourself worked up into a lather, having conversations in your head about people trying to own others and these new Kennedy cousins and I can only point out the facts: they didn’t spit on or beat the shite out if a guy who killed a woman, left her floating for 10 hours and made up a preposterous story in an attempt to cover it up.

I realize this is an important issue across the board, and personally I’ll wait to see what comes from all this as it relates to this individual (I had no idea about him or anything called “Telegram” beyond Western Union), but damñ if the Germans don’t make it all sound so terrifyingly German: “In order to fulfill it’s legally prescribed duties, the Bundeskriminalmant would like you to…” There are many, many times I am grateful the Skin-nerd vorfahren emigrated to the new world a couple hundred years ago.