leh-nerd skin-erd

Everyone needs a good laugh now and again, 4th, so I’m with you there. You believe the rumor mill as reported by Woodward, and that’s great. I’m not sure why you’d want a Harris presidency after the acknowledgment that they f’d up the handling of Ukraine, but perhaps you just don’t care about that part of the world. Either way, it ends up Harris or Trump as President. Either way, I get up and keep moving along with family, friends and a good life. I hope the same for you.

Well, there is already concern with liberal assassins milling about, and now with the FEMA Crips on the prowl I say "No way.".

This is why you probably feel like everyone is always fighting with you, you operate in extremes. R. Woodward is an author intent on selling a book, nothing more, nothing less. His story goes that he spoke with someone who said something about someone else. It could be true. It could be false. It's up to the reader to decide, and bias creeps into the conversation. In the same book, the author states that Biden has raged at Obama for completely mishandling the Russian incursion into Crimea, in essence stating that they f'd it up. Stepping away from the need to be force fed drama and book sales, it seems pretty clear that Obama f'd up Crimea, and Biden f'd up Ukraine. I think that because Putin advanced when Obama/Biden and Biden/Harris were in charge of the response. I think that he knew the response would be manageable and had a pretty good feeling on how Biden would respond. He had 50 years of intel on him. That said...what R Woodward said someone else said could be true, or it could be false. My general rule of thumb is that when someone says they spoke with someone about someone else, and in some way profits from spreading the tale, it's reasonable to be distrustful of what someone said about someone saying things about someone else. I learned that when I was 12 or 13.

“Regular people” when she sits in with multi-millionaire supporters on the View, Leslie Stahl and Howard Stern? Did any of them get into the Unrealized Gain conversation and how much they were looking forward to contributing on a fair share basis? How are you going to handle it, since you’re a reg-per like the richy riches of the world?

Even if you’re right, Biden was mentally diminished and it worked for you just fine. He’d still be running if they told you he was the guy. Just because you have a pinup of octogenarian Leslie Stahl in a bikini in doesn’t mean everyone has to sit with her for a chit chat.

“….new book says…”. 🤔

I don’t speak for Irv or his parties, but I’m not sure what you don’t understand. The complaints that she’s a key player in a government that directs massive amounts of money to foreign entities at the expense of tax paying citizens here? That Biden isn’t much more active during a major catastrophe? That she appeared with a media member with a long history of controversial behavior as described? Or that she’s focused on one voting block at the expense of others. For context, Stern has suggested that certain people should be denied hospital care if they don’t align with his beliefs, and worse. This is all standard fare.

He debated 2x, and it seems silly to enable the democrat party that couldn’t figure out whether to run with an increasingly senile old codger or the West Coast liberal. Your people shouldn’t have tried to force the geez on the country when he was clearly not able to do the job. No, better to run on what is already known and let the people decide. Morley Safer is gone, Leslie Stahl is in the equivalent of a journalistic retirement home and there are more efficient ways to transit the message points. Part of the problem—besides being on network TV—the institutional arrogance. Trump doesn’t want to go, report it and move on. Simple. He isn’t doing it because he sees no benefit to it. If the local Baskin-Robins demanded a candidate sit down for a chat, doesn’t compel anyone to attend.

Look, you might enjoy a a quick look at the TV Guide, a cup of Earl Gray and a hearty dose of "Murder She Wrote", but just about everyone else is on to the game of legacy shows like 60 Minutes. Carefully edited news shows are relic of a bygone era, likely like your receding hairline. Be happy--you probably had a good run.

It doesn’t matter. 60 Minutes is a relic of a bygone era.

Roundy says he 's fifty-fifty on that sort of thing. He favors a bandone.

A guy in a Springsteen shirt flipped your books at Gowanda Jr High in '78, didn't he, Irv? You could be right on this, Scot. Good God that's dark, but you may be correct.

I saw Springsteen in the Meadowlands in the 1980s. He said at one point “Blind faith in your government can get you killed…”. There was a tremendous applause as the gathered masses—cons, lib, agnostic—-recognized the truth of that statement. Years later, he goes full throated supporter of a political party, an aging kazillionaire aligning with government that suits his agenda. He was right the first time.

You linked to a GOP site here? It says “Real Raw News”.

1997 was nearly 3 decades ago, and he’s been a major player since well before that. I’m not certain what you characterize as “hated”, but he was a very successful media personality and just based on his style, it’s highly likely his people were digging for dirt, angles and controversial material his entire career. I started listening to him in 1985ish, and understand your point on his version of comedy. However, given his rage at people he disagrees with now, and his declarations on what he hopes happens to them, it’s also fair to view his past bits and wonder what level of animus, condescension racism/sexism/homophobia played a part in all that. Either way, his past actions are what he brings to the table, and it’s always sort of cringey when a person sees the light long after their behavior has earned them a few hundred mill.

I don’t know about that, but I’d certainly think he was complicit in lots of ugly **** going on back in Hollywood/music scene for much of his time as a professional. He was well-connected with insiders setting up interviews, meeting with stars, etc. The best way to avoid any comeuppance in that regard is to have a full blown rebirth, especially given the immense wealth he’s accumulated over the decades. Maybe Harris is going to ask him about all that.

Not with that attitude, Little Mister.

Start today on your journey to being part of the solution, 4th. Sorry to hear that L Ron—-best of luck over the next few days and weeks. These things are no joke.

#roundy nails it.

Much ado about nothing. One of Harris' resume boosters was running a political hit job on a SC nominee involving allegations of deviant behavior by the nominee. She also stated quite emphatically that she believed women who accused Biden of touching them inappropriately and without their consent. That's all before we get to HRC enabling WJC and spinning tales of vast right wing conspiracies and victim blaming. Seems to me you're willing to cast your vote for one person engaged in piggish behavior (and based already have with JB) while holding Irv to a higher standard. That's consistent with liberal voters, of course, but still. Oops--there we go. Lies are not lies when you believe them not to be lies, or when lies are lied only for your version of the greater good. A wise man once said "Oops--there we go. Lies are not lies when you believe them not to be lies, or when lies are lied only for your version of the greater good.".

It’s those who pretend it doesn’t play out that way who end up looking foolish.

This was my point the other day. The knee jerk response is to blame the party in power, point fingers and use this sort of tragedy for political gain. By the time Helene hit, the decisions to prioritize funding for other expenditures had long been made. It’s a uniquely government phenomenon, not unlike Medicare and Social Security.

Ah, ok. That’s very interesting.

I've been accused of being overly wordy, condescending, high and mighty, a nazi, and delightfully handsome and charming in my time here. I can't help what you (and all of you) think, but I believe most do not need a secret decoder ring to figure out what I think on topics I engage in. I asked because I wanted to know what L. Ron thought about that particular subject. He answered. That's it. Oh, and some people* think you stated that I was changing the subject when I asked L that question, and that you went and changed the subject when you brought up speeding tickets in a hilarious coincidence. Do you think you mirrored the behavior that you think I implied when I didn't? (*For clarity--I am "some people")

In the past, I've wasted time with dishonest posters, and you remind me of one. Strike 1: You inquired with a question, I answered and posed one of my own. You w*ssed out without answering. Strike 2: You lied about insults lobbed at L Ron, I gave you an opportunity to step up, you w*ssed out again. Strike 3: I asked you who suggested the Immunity case changed the documents case, you w*ssed out again. Strike 4: I didn't ask anyone to apply anything. Have a nice day.