leh-nerd skin-erd

You never saw the left minimize or target others? Never heard anything about cult members, Putin supporters, about authoritarianism, about failure to tolerate, about white privileged, and most recently, about educated voters v uneducated? The general rule of thumb for a leftists is that whatever income level a leftist is taxed at, the people north paying their fair share starts roughly at the next higher income bracket. Deplorables. Irredeemables. Garbage. You never heard of cancel culture? Fascinating.

When he mentioned the current administration being derelict in its duty, he didn’t suggest it was Truman or Eisenhower at the helm. That’s a plus and in spite of his very pronounced stutter, I think he did good here. I’m voting sharp as a tack. Final answer.

Well, based on recent history, it’s possible though I don’t see the MSM participating in the deception to the extent they protected Biden. I also don’t see an unflinching, unquestioning commitment to belief in stories told by MSM outlets like I see with folks on your side of the aisle. In the event your version of a conspiracy comes to pass, I’d probably follow your lead when the dust settles and state that “DJT is off the stage, and no longer relevant.” when the time was right. That would be immediately after it was revealed, of course. Such is politics. As for the Epstein files, I never understood why they remained hidden, but it seems the DOJ has opted to follow the Biden DOJ lead. Continuity is good? From my side of things, I’m comfortable that the Biden admin would have selectively released any damaging or potentially damaging information contained in the files, consistent with the scorched earth policy followed during his admin. However, anything is possible.

Ok, but it seems a bit unreasonable to apply Occam's theory and not consider that being lied to is pretty much a mainstream issue these days. You imply I'm thinking conspiracy, but I'm thinking with a cell phone and communication/messaging apps it's pretty simple to organize a crowd of individuals intent on creating a ruckus. That said, you asked what I thought, I replied. When you pressed for further information, I replied again. There was nothing conspiratorial in what I suggested, yet here you are offering your opinions on my potential conspiracy theory. For what it's worth, we were lied to about Russia and who knew what and when, lied to about the deteriorating mental condition of JB, lied to about HBs laptop and Russian disinfo campaigns, lied to about elements of COVID including death counts of the elderly....all of which had the numbskulls on the other side of the political aisle screeching about conspiracy nuts. I'm not doing that here, and certainly acknowledge the possibility you have laid out. It's quite reasonable. It's ok with me to disagree agreeably.

I disagree. Chaos in the streets is always good for party out of power, it allows for the opportunity to position itself as the problem solver it given the chance. To borrow from a well-known political saying, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”. As to who might be organizing, I’d think there are any number of groups that might be in play: -Open Border groups; -Foreign govts/individuals looking to sow seeds of discontent in our country; -Left wing anarchists -Right wing anarchists; -Cartels; -Business groups that favor open borders and cheap labor; -Any group/social club Roundy belongs to;

That might be your conclusion, it isn't mine. I shared my conclusion at the end of my last post. Your question was fair, and it seems you've come to the conclusion that there was no coordination and everything happened spontaneously. That's possible.

Yes, I've been to Los Angeles though it's been quite a number of years. For whatever that's worth, I've never been to Washington, DC and feel pretty confident I know what happened there. As for coordination and violence, which part do you disagree with? That they were coordinated, or violent? I think the violence is pretty evident and was going off the assumption that spontaneous rioters typically don't have professional grade fireworks at hand, and multiple incidents occurring in the same way at the same time across a geographic area seems unlikely to be a random occurence. Be that as it may, let's assume that spontaneous riots occur in multiple sections of the city over a several day period, and said rioters happen upon unmanned gasoline containers with bottles, rags, and matchbooks conveniently nearby. Not far away, a random truck drives by and drops a pallet of Mexican flags nearby, and just around the corner, a black market illegal professional grade fireworks shop is left unattended whilst the proprietor goes to grab himself a latte from Starbucks. Rioters be rioting, and if the local authorities are overmatched, overwhelmed or apathetic to the needs of federal law enforcement agencies, the obvious answer seems to be to bring in protection from another source.

Whether or not the 'issue' demands intervention typically has a lot to do with the perspective from which it is viewed. Inside the violence, intervention of any sort probably seems like a pretty sweet deal. From the safety of the perch outside the zone, sure, let it all play out. I do agree with you, however, that a strong, direct and forceful response from the local authorities is the first wave. Again, sounds like the feds say the locals failed in that regard. As for 1/6, that's the beauty of consistency, I don't have to constantly change narratives depending on who the target is. The liberal democrats (and all others) sequestering behind armed guards was absolutely the correct thing to do. Asking, begging, pleading and hoping for the cavalry to arrive was the correct course of action and reflects human nature. I'm quite certain that had some 1/6ers breached the room they were in, there would have been no calls for restraint, or inquiring as to who was armed and who was not, or ensuring only the appropriately designated individuals fires warning shots first/shots to disable second before moving onward to more lethal options. Thereafter, supporting the shooting of the unarmed Ashli Babbitt and rushing to the defense of the LEO who shot her made sense because to them, in that case, it was all very, very personal. I wish they gave as much love, support and understanding to other members of the law enforcement community when it wasn't them directly in harm's way.

I don't know if we need the Marines, but would think probably not. However, the attacks seems well-coordinated and violent, which implies to me a certain degree of sophistication and funding. I couldn't say whether intelligence suggests greater violence on the horizon. With respect to National Guard, well, it seems the LAPD was unwilling to assist, the governor and mayor has made their feelings clear on the attempt to enforce the law, so deploying the NG makes sense. The rioters are wrong, great, we agree. I would think the onus would be on the state to deal with rioters, violent extremists, and stay out of the way of federal law enforcement activities. I don't think that's happening, so the federal government needs to provide support for federal law enforcement activities. I would also hazard a guess to say that those directly impacted by the rioters, insurrectionists and fomenters of violence would willingly accept the assistance of the federal government as the state plays politics on the sideline and not give a **** what that looked like. All they likely see is the time, effort and money put into building their lives, homes and businesses treated as fodder for extremists and at the whim of government officials unwilling to apply the law. In that regard, btw, the locals would not be unlike the liberal politicians huddled behind walls and people with guns and a willingness to use them on 1/6. Given the choice to dispatch the 1/6 rioters with extreme prejudice, bring in the National Guard, the Marine Corp, the First Infantry Division and any and all in-between, they would have chosen to do so to protect themselves regardless of rules, laws and regulations.

From an emotional perspective, I understand and appreciate what you’re saying. Individuals and families seeking a better way of life for themselves and their families is an age old story and an orderly and process-driven system for legal immigration is what every decent and reasonable person should hope for. We haven’t had that, and people on both sides of the border have been victimized. “Legal or not” is where the problem begins, and separating families is pretty common in that situation. As for resistance, if the standard response to emotional decisions is rioting and violence against law enforcement, the outcome would typically not be “Well, forget it, let’s just let it go.”. The better alternative is compliance with laws and regulations. This situation has been decades in the making and the responsibility falls squarely on the politicians representing our country for the last several decades. It’s exacerbated now by Democrat and liberal leaders who actively encourage defiance of our laws, regulations and sovereignty. It seems from photos and videos that the local authorities are unable to handle the situation, which involves federal personnel on the ground being targeted with violence. Politics plays a huge part in the response, and if reporting from the feds in this case is to be believed, it sounded as if LAPD would rather see federal law enforcement hurt/injured/killed than render assistance. Like the law, hate the regulation, hate enforcement…but the actions of individuals assaulting law enforcement officers, destroying private property, shutting down traffic and terrorizing neighborhoods is clearly a very dangerous situation. Those responsible for violent intercession are playing chess as well.

“In every case?” I’m not sure I follow what you mean by that. As for shoveling for him, I don’t see it that way at all. I’m simply laying out how presidential pardons go. A president/team decides who to pardon. In many cases, the people being pardoned are guilty of a crime, though more recently, given retroactive grace for past transgressions that likely were criminal. That’s it. That’s the story. From there, it’s up to the citizen interested in the process to decide if the pardon was righteous or the result or not. That’s it. That’s the story.

Fix the system that government created, government administers, and government doesn’t bother to manage effectively. Then, swing back around and we can chat about capricious and arbitrary changes to a compulsory system. Signed, A. Boomer.

That’s been addressed. Trump’s view was there was political persecution and/or prosecutorial overreach involved. He made a decision pardon as is consistent with his role as President. It’s up to each citizen to decide what that means to them. Outside federal charges, I would think these people, if charged and convicted, would garner no sympathy from President Trump. The question would be whether or not charges were brought, or not outside based on the politics of the local DA. Good news is there is something for everyone to be upset about should they so desire.

@The Frankish Reich Thoughts on this commentary from Kash Patel?

I don’t like the chaos in this latest skirmish, and wasn’t a fan of the chaos in his admin the first time. I think they both are behaving quite badly and it’s a bad look for them both. I think what Musk said on Twitter about Epstein was interesting, though I think he was actually quite careful in what he said. I don’t care what the rest of the world thinks, and to be fair I didn’t worry when Biden was an animated corpse supposedly at the top of his game, and the like. It bothers me a bit that this is happening now simply because it somewhat neutralizes the “You dummies thought they were telling you the truth about Biden!” angle with liberals. Beyond that, probably a good time to get the popcorn out.

Son of a b. I misread your initial post and have to apologize for that. I’ll withhold commentary on some of the issues we disagree on, and typically proofread my posts to ensure I’m saying here what I would say in a personal conversation, and missed it. Specifically, I misread your initial stance on Hamas, and that got me thinking about post-WW2 relations with nations interested in our complete annihilation. That’s hard for me to wrap my head around given the way the war impacted members of my family. My bad. Kay wins this skirmish. You said nothing about partnering with Hamas, though I still think the parallels to the imperialistic tendencies of Japan is interesting. I also credited you for thinking quite broadly, I must take that credit back. That said, I had loaded up a second nostalgic tv reference to highlife how misunderstandings can lead to different conclusions. From Happy Days: Fonzie: How did your date go last night? Richie Cunningham: We played chess. Fonzie: You played with her chest??! I had you as the Fonz, yet here we are. I’m the Fonz….Im the Fonz.

That's an interesting perspective, Hamas as an ally to the United States. I suppose it's possible, the brutality of the Japanese, Germans and Italians in the 1940s ultimately gave way to friendly relations a short time later. It was a mere 20 years after the end of the war that young Lehn and his brothers watched the hapless but lovable German Sergeant Schultz clowned upon by the crafty Colonel Hogan in Hogan's Heros. If accounts of life in Gaza are accurate, I don't really see much hope for that happening at this time. I'm reading stories of murder, torture, gender-based violence against Palestinians by Hamas. The ongoing conflict with Israel is problematic, and my general belief is when you slaughter a thousand plus festival goers in an assault similar to that launched 10/7, take hostages and corpses as bounty, there's not a lot of room for interpretation. I'd think for the path to friendship to occur, it would take a substantial uprising by Palestinians against Hamas, remove them from power, and replace them with a less killy, rapey, butchery style of government. It has happened before, but it seems to me most Palestinians seem to support Hamas. You're not a fan of Israel, and you seem to believe in the innate goodness and decency of Hamas. Israel is not an innocent in all of this, but to me--in the current binary choice world I live in, it's not even close as to who we partner with--warts and all. That said, would you lay out the path forward where we partner with both Israel and Hamas? I'll keep an open mind.

That's a fair question, I often wonder about Bill Gates and his elevation to sainthood because he's going to give all his money away save the measly $3b set aside for his kids. Anyway, "the possible interest" could be offering a better taxpayer/government relationship by pointing out the challenges of ever-increasing debt. It could be in applying his skillset to identifying fraud and waster in government, resetting entitlements because he feels that's the best possible outcome for American citizens. I guess it's also possible that as he helped to identify/root out fraud and abuse, it freed up money that could be spent in other areas or for projects where he might benefit. Could be his version of altruism, could be his heart is in the right place. Could be he really believed he could make a difference. I think for both parties, being amongst the wealthiest in the world doesn't necessarily mean they cannot try to do good things in life. But yeah, it's def possible he just wants to sell more Teslas. I can't guarantee I'll remember to check back in a couple years, but I did put a sticky note on my planner.

Thank you--the whole X short blurbiness is aggravating more than anything. I'm luck to be able to embed a youtube link. No X (formerly Twitter) for me.

I think you nailed the psychology of it all. Let's celebrate before we get to the ugliness. If it makes you happy, I am happy for you. I didn't know she was tall tbh. It was largely irrelevant given the rest of the costume. Further, I've decided to delete the meme, I am overruling you, again, some would say, to keep it civil.

I understand your perspective and certainly see people posting original thought. I also think @BillsFanNC is quite correct on how this place functions. On the other hand, I’m not certain there’s all that much original thought on the main board, quite a bit of repetition, and people opining on things they know little about. To be fair, there are a few excellent posters who seem to have good insight into the game, but mostly it’s just people with a common interest shooting the breeze.

Playing both sides how? I mean he was pretty slick positioning your crazies to firebomb the Tesla and getting former VP candidate Walz to try and drive down the value, but beyond that?

Indeed I did. Oddly, I didn’t find it unsettling. I am the middle child of a large family, just happy to have some eyes on me I suppose. 1. I overruled your declaration that “….the actual Nazi politicians never saw themselves as socialists…” It’s impossible to know what was in the hearts and minds of all politicians from the 1930s to mid 1945. Hence, I saw that as speculative and overruled the declaration. I have to stick with that here. 2. Oh, ok, I missed this long paragraph the first couple times around, and still can’t find it. It’s probably my screen glitching. 3. “I’d like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony.” Pepsi Commercial way back when 4. “Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars.”. MLK Fair enough in the cat references, all of it. Creative, though I’m a traditionalist and prefer Julie Newmar suited up. I think she, more than most, captured the ethos of the character, her nimble beauty a testam….ah who am I kidding. You put pretty much any of them in that cat suit and life is temporarily less dreary by half. The mean meme…I wasn’t sure how to go with that, probably because that guy and I have virtually nothing in common. I get that wasn’t the point, but I couldn’t really work with it. Btw I have never heard of the “Son I am disappoint” meme until this very minute. That could be part of the issue.

No one is above the law, version 265

Ah, I forgot I labelled you a 'fraidy cat. At least we agree on your Stewie moniker. We can roll with that. It was not my intent to overrule you, again, not even certain how one obviously cute (I didn't want to say it, but it's true and thank you ☺️) old timer could overrule anyone. I actually thought I handled that respectfully, I didn't knock your post, and included a tag so it would not appear I was talking behind your back. I think you're being overly sensitive. To boot, you initially suggested I was overruling historians, then prest-o change-o you changed it to me overruling you. Trés confusing. ✊ Before, you didn't seem inclined to acknowledge this. Why hold the line on that particular issue in an attempt to win a point only to abandon it one post later? I guess it's like that old lady said in "Titanic", a woman's heart is indeed a deep ocean. 🫡 Argue as you see fit, reasonable people can disagree reasonably. To me, that sort of interaction sounds an awful lot like arguing over who is tougher, Spider or Batman. Besides, Stevie Wonder could see where I was going with that. I'm a simple man, really, and don't really see much value there. OMG you lied about the 18 hour cat nap? Did you even lick the back of your pawhands, or is everything about our relationship a lie? My only failure was in trusting, apparently. #mean