leh-nerd skin-erd

Don’t let nobody tell you that STEM ain’t for guys like us! I originally had you as: @Doc man with sandwich board sign reading “If Climate Change is real then why am I so cool?” You got written out in the last draft.

I don't make the rules, Tibs. They say you're homely, you're homely. The eye tilts, it tilts. Perhaps you and @muppy can split a Mountain Dew and commiserate over artistic direction. I must push on! I am well, thank you, and I hope you are as well.

I'd be ok with that.

You're as genteel as a ma'fa, Frank. I'd never take that from you--and remember, artistic license prevails here.

I cannot. It's 2024 and Annie Lennox is dressed like she's going to a Mennonite barn raisin' in that video. It was appropriate for the time, but time's change Mup. If you wish to be recast as "PTA Mom at San Diego Yacht Club's annual Cotillion" I can do it, but people don't buy the steak, they buy the sizzle.

That dress would be appropriate in Pennsylvania Dutch country, I've got you in Paris. I'm moving product here.

Cast: @Irv as the irrepressible climate change denier who's signature phrase "What a hot mess!" is sure to resonate with audiences old and young; @ComradeKayAdams as the passionately verbose climate warrior with a gritty can-do attitude and an abiding affection for Greta Thornberg, known only in the movie as "She who steals joy from the world"; @Tiberius as the object of Kay's affection, a tall homely lad with a crooked smile, lazy eye, and a man who knows so little about so much; @muppy as "The Lady in the Black Dress", intrepid journalist international swimsuit model posing as a hostess at the hottest vegan restaurant/house of ill repute in Paris; @The Frankish Reich as chief climate litigator on a path to save the planet, a long-winded yet genteel country lawyer producing enough carbon dioxide to kill three small villages in the Amazon every other day @B-Man man at bar; @leh-nerd skin-erd, your faithful narrator

Immediately and definitively ending corruption in the country, too!

Hey Andy--I think that's fair, the part about some republicans/conservatives and the police that day. I've had more than a few conversations with friends about that. However, having watched protests, some with substantial violence, looting and burning by liberal protestors over the past several decades, most seemingly endorsed or supported by liberals, I can understand on some level why that happens. Witness COVID, with the fate humanity hanging in the balance, and mass protests across the country...crickets. As for Trump looking to pardon 1.6 prisoners, that's politics. It will move some people to support him, and others to outright reject him.

I support of arresting people who committed crimes, and reasonable prison sentences being doled out. Societally speaking, it seems there is a transition to getting people back on the streets, movement away from jail time, and a pushback against punitive sentences. That doesn’t seem to be the norm in Washington.

There were cases of horrible treatment of the police on 1/6. What I have found most interesting is how quickly the Dems/libs in Washington became pro-blue when they had concerns for their safety, v how they demonize law enforcement when it comes to your community or mine. Michael Brown comes to mind, where a guy physically assaults a police officer in an attempt to secure his weapon, and becomes a martyr for the liberal cause. I’d bet many, many law enforcement officials would have appreciated expressions of concern from some of our brave elected officials who found themselves cowering in fear praying some version of law enforcement would come to save them.

What you perceive as self-righteousness and deflection on my part is actually your own frustration and inability to recall what you wrote and why you wrote it. Or, as you might say, “Benghazi, 2.0, let’s talk about not talking about it.”

Ah, interesting. It was you who threw out "Benghazi 2.0", yet here you seem to be willing to acknowledge the serious, systemic, ethical and procedural issues with how Team Obama handled Benghazi. Your recent post shows progress. What actions by Team Obama were troubling to you? And no, it wasn't frustrating to me to any great degree. It apparently was to you as you brought it up.

There were serious, systemic, ethical and procedural issues with how Team Obama handled Benghazi, but no need to litigate that if you are a fan of what happened there. I would suggest if anything, it’s SOP Congressional Committee 1,765.0+. Of course. That’s my magic.

The point is to inflict damage on a political opponent. If they end up impeaching, that's the best outcome. If not, they revealed that Biden mislead the American people and partnered with a sketchy company tied to a hostile nation.

AOC is an unreliable barometer of neutrality, and virtually everything she says must rightly be viewed with suspicion. That is to say, she may know of, or have evidence of wrongdoing but as a party loyalist chooses not to divulge. In that regard, she's no different than the R leading the committee, who may know with certainty that the only thing Joe Biden really did was lie about his involvement with the family business, work/negotiate and receive payouts from a company tied to a hostile regime, and potentially sell out American interests in exchange for a personal financial windfall. This leads me back to the committee. The appropriate R trajectory would be to investigate, selectively leak important information, follow the money, and use the information to pursue impeachment if impeachment was appropriate. If impeachment is not a reasonable outcome, the trajectory shifts to damaging JB politically, and tying his democrat supporters to behavior antithetical to the notion that they are working for the hardworking Americans they allegedly serve, and do so in a way that causes maximum damage to his image and reelection campaign. It's a delicate balance. Too soon, the people you need to convince lose interest. Too late, the opportunity to gain momentum has passed. At the same time, this is purely a Biden-created problem. As his dopey son ran about leveraging his father's political influence in foreign, corrupt countries, avoiding paying taxes and spiraling downward, it seems under the most favorable conditions for him, JB partnered with him for profit. He then lied and mislead his core supporters about his involvement, all while partnering with a country at odds with the values he supposedly supports. His out, politically speaking, would have been to fully embrace his role as private citizen, answer questions as to the amount of money he made from dealing with the Chinese, and speak eloquently about how he, as a multi-millionaire many times over, went over an above our tax code to pay his fair share.

With respect to a bond, it may well be that the fear of retaliation by NYS (or the Feds) drives the decision. There are a number of articles, and a number of commentators offering the opinion that what transpired was egregious. Corporations and wealthy people are not dumb, they know that what passes for justice is often malleable, and that Trump is public enemy number one. Who wants that heat?

The wealthy are often above the law. Our highest ranking politicians are often above the law. You just have to be the wrong type of wealthy, or the oppo politician at the wrong time.

I have no military experience, but the notion that the Afghanistan debacle was pre-ordained by the actions of the Trump admin is absurd. Daz name-dropping Fox every 5th paragraph is compelling, of course, but ultimately nonsense.

Try considering all the words uttered, sequentially, and the subject being addressed. It will lighten the load.

That’s an awesome read and makes a lot of sense to me. I’ve dabbled in real estate on a limited level, run in circles with a few people who have found great success. What I’ve found on our local level is that there are times, not infrequent, when representatives of the government looked to wet their beak as well. In NYC, I’d assume it’s just a cost of doing business and it always is what it always was, and likely will be in the future in spite of what happened to Trump. On the national/international stage, you’re likely 100% correct on Trump and how he wants to operate.

Of course you're not. You're not a simpleton. By the way--I think Trump is at his absolute best in situations like that. Engaging, mischievous, irreverent and funny. I mean look at this--the border is an absolute $#@^fest, with people victimized on both sides of the border, the state of Texas tEEbagging the great liberal cities of the land, and watching them crack almost immediately. Of all the many problems this country faces, Trump's dictator for a day comments is not even close to my concern. Great point, and completely understandable from the perspective of a lawyer. Respectfully (and I mean this, a good attorney is an unbelievable asset), to the average person, that's more than half the problem with politicians and lawyers. The border smolders, tens of thousands of people victimized, but the REAL problem is Trump joking about dictatorship. Still, lots of people get really, really wealthy while others are all riled up. As for firing up the base, in our system, that's the way it's done. He's a graduate of the Wharton School of Business, made scoodles of dollars navigating the dirty world of NYC real estate, scoodles more in the entertainment field, and nothing was an issue until he crossed the line to run for President, which turned out to be an historically successful campaign. Then, suddenly, as if by magic, he was a Putin stooge, illegitimate president and all that came with that. I think conversations on who may be smart, who not so much can be had, but we would probably disagree on who is whom. Or, whom is who. Or whom is whom. Thoughts on DJT just wanting to win, or method of governing, yeah, maybe.

That's correct Frank, I hadn't seen this clip. I find talk that Trump is intent on becoming Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Genghis Kahn all rolled into one boring and trite. I think he means that the southern border is a disaster, and as President he'll act swiftly to solve the problem. I think he feels an energy independent America is best for our collective future, hence the '...drill, drill, drill' comment. Mostly though, I think it was hyperbole delivered in what he sees as a humorous way. The tell for me is that he said he only wanted to be dictator for one day, which seems really, really undictatorly. I think his instinct on humor was good, given the laughter that ensues. As for his use of Executive Authority, seems everyone has an opinion on what's reasonable and what's not, typically decided by whether or not it's their guy or the other guy using it. I do want to declare I am against dictatorship in this country, even if just for a day.

Sure. Send over links or video that you're talking about.

Hello Muppy, This isn't about posters on PPP threads taking shots at each other. It's feigned outrage over specific moments in time designed to rile up listeners/readers/voters to manipulate them accordingly. It works. 15 seconds and a google search will reveal all sports of people, from all walks of life, using words that can get someone, somewhere, worked up.