leh-nerd skin-erd

What are the ramifications of his speech, Andy?

You may be wasting good dream time there, Frank.

Oh gosh, carve your own path L. They were your words, chosen by you to express what you believed to be true. There’s no grand conspiracy afoot to make you say things you don’t believe. You’re upset, the conspiracy talk may have you amped up. If it helps you to think of me as a princess, that’s your journey. I don’t know these people, but sure, some people see minor transgressions as major catastrophes and maybe even conspiracies.

The US cases described above were addressed in the civil justice system, not the criminal justice system. The argument from free speech advocates isn’t freedom from consequence, it’s freedom from overzealous law enforcement and authoritarian policing. People were not concerned that Amber Heard was going to be tazed coming out of the LA Fitness because of her issues with Captain Jack. I understand we have different systems and you’re obviously supportive of yours. You’ve expressed that the targeted individuals represent the lowest rungs on humanity, and that may be the case. I’ve never been quite sure how to address ours here. I would be against our local town issuing a permit for a nazi gathering, but the very real question is where lines are drawn. The “day in court” issue is something to discuss as well. There are many ways for overzealous law enforcement to crush undesirables. One is to arrest and imprison them, force them to seek counsel, expose them to public ridicule and loss of employment and bury them in legal fees. In our system, a defendant can win and lose at the same time.

I had forgotten that L Ron came up with that gem about Biden not lying, just making things up. He was pretty adamant about that one. Instant PPP classic. In our discussion today, I was pretty close to giving him credit for acknowledging there was something fishy about the Harris assault on Kavanaugh, but then I realized he chalked the accusations of violent sexual assault against a judge with decades of public service off to a cheap stunt—leading me to believe L Ron’s top three hysterical cheap stunts are: 1. Jumping out and yelling “Boo!” when someone comes around the corner; 2. Tying a friends shoe laces together when he falls asleep at his desk; 3. Savaging a man in front of the nation and his wife and two young daughters by accusing him of gang rape and general, sustained sexual deviance when he was in high school; Many, many people confuse going to a 7-11 for Mountain Dew in Duluth with carrying a weapon in a war zone in Iraq. It’s pretty common.

Yeah, you think a politician/justice on the other side of the aisle from you is corrupt. Tell you what--let's agree that an independent, non-partisan committee investigates the personal finances of all Supreme Court justices from the past 30 years--book deals, private speaking engagements, free concert tix, vacations with billionaires, and lets extend what we look at to include the actions of past professional/corporate relationships, spouse, siblings and parents. That will provide a complete snapshot of who is corrupt, who is pure as the driven snow, and who should recuse from what and why. Consider, as an example, HRCs relationship with Steele and a foreign element hostile to our free and fair elections. The fact that she lost the election in no way reveals that she wasn't trying to intentionally and fraudulently impact our free and fair elections, and we know after the Mueller case post mortem that the leadership of the Dem party knew as early as Trump's inauguration of that particular attempt to steal the election. Let's get it all out, instead of reacting to bogus stories and political opinion pieces about one particular justice without context of what really happens. Tough to yawn when you're typing a reply, playa.

L Ron, that you like your liars, sexual abusers, character assassins, influence peddlers, vaccine deniers, authoritarians and the like to be of the democrat variety is completely within your purview as a partisan and citizen. Don't feign indignation when someone points it out to you. Go figure, again.

Yeah, but the impeachment was launched by the opposition party, the AG pursuing subsequent cases is from the opposition party, judge(s) unfavorable to conservative causes, the Russia inv started by a hostile director of the FBI who's actions were questionable, and your biggest issue with the Supreme Court is you didn't like the outcome. Add to that his troubles in NY came about as a result of reimagined statutes and personal animus against Trump, his civil suit judgement a result of temporary changes to statutes of limitations, and so on. In this regard, you're just another partisan with partisan views.

Ah, I see. I’m always interested when I see things like this, especially in context of divisiveness and issues in our country. A US Senator launches an all out character assassination on an enemy, a guy with an excellent track record of public service. She accuses him of running rape trains, violent sexual assaults and generally committing horrendous crimes against young innocents and is supported and is applauded by her party and base. The media swoons over the story, reporting breathlessly on allegations impossible to prove and of course impossible to disprove. That Senator earns your vote because she just ran with a “cheap political stunt”, like pulling signs off lawns. Trump says something stupid about a guy legendary for his political savvy and certainly willing to insult/debase his opponents, that’s a show stopper for you. Go figure.

What was the “cheap political stunt”? Harris re: Kavanaugh? Harris re: Biden believing the women accusing Biden of assault? Biden acknowledging the inappropriate touching? Harris advocating for women and then partnering with the guy they accused of wrongdoing?

I don't ignore anyone, that's a limitation on your thinking, not mine. Here's where we stand: Harris/Walz may win, meaning Trump/Vance lose; Trump/Vance may win, meaning Trump/Vance lose; The election is 90 days out. Harris has been in the game for a month. Walz has been in the game for 20 minutes. "Anyone but Trump" voters are part of the dem base and have been since 2016. "New" adherents may well be a factor, and part of their decision-making may involve student loan forgiveness/higher taxation on other citizens, whatever. It's a great play to appeal to anyone with debt looking to have it relieved. We'll know in 90 days.

Trump's comments about McCain's service were egregious, though I personally think McCain was a horrible senator and a bad guy generally. I didn't always feel this way, but as I stopped to consider the problems at the border-from the victimization of travelers, the involvement of the cartels, and the power he had as a Senator...I believe he was complicit in a whole lot of pain and suffering because he benefited financially from it. I think that's the general trend in DC, btw. Were you appalled at Harris' treatment of Kavanaugh? Her comments about JB and his groping of women, or JB's acknowledgement of inappropriate touching?

I think history has shown it's largely irrelevant. Her predecessor, JB, was falling off the cognitive cliff over the past 4 years, and supporters bought into the theory that he was still pretty darn sharp. Had he stayed in the race, they would be buying it still, pushing forward and voting the party line. There's history here--for all the cult talk and OJ chatter, Biden has a rather rich history of lying and it was ignored, a dark history of being very touchy feely and creeping women out (it was Harris who stated emphatically she believed the allegations of assault agaisnt JB), Biden and classified documents, slippage, interpretation of the laws regarding classified documents on the fly, and Harris spreading vaccine hysteria when the world was supposedly on the precipice....none of it really mattered. JB blows a gasket, the word goes out that Harris is the heir apparent, they simply crossed out Biden and wrote Harris in crayon. If the race is to be won by DJT, it's going to come at ground level, convincing the American independent that the Harris/Walz ticket results in a bad outcome for the country. How that happens, why that happens remains to be seen. It's a tall order, for example--one of the central themes of today's modern dem party is to encourage their base to get up, get out, roll up their sleeves and get to the hard work of finding someone else to pay school debt, in spite of constitutional limitations. When you factor in independents seeing a path to having their debt load lightened, it's hard to walk away from the free stuff.

Biden has the remote work-from-home schedule of 5 Gen Zers.

Indeed. A good laugh is a good laugh.

Tibs said it was a news conference, I was just trying to be helpful. Stop spamming me bro.

News. It's in the title, duh.

This is a darn good thread with some pretty funny lines. Hetero-sectional was a great start.

My post wasn't intended to imply you didn't have bona fide credentials, I was simply asking. I wasn't defending Sherpa, I was simply pointing out that he's shared his experience/experiences over time. One of the reasons I frequent the board is to get other perspectives, and often those perspectives are unvarnished and removed from the pesky civility of everyday life. That can be painful if one is a sensitive soul, feelings can get hurt, or posts misinterpreted. I don't think you fit into that category, it's just a general observation. I have no military training, no deep understanding of military capability or technological advances, nor much to offer on the obviously complicated relationship between citizens of Ukraine and citizens of Russia. I do, I believe, have a pretty decent understanding of human nature and have come to realize that when our nation's leaders suggest "Country X is good!", "Country Y is bad!", we may not be getting the full, accurate story. Thanks for the response. At first blush, my thought is that the experience you've outlined here loosely translates to 'informed in a manner similar to the way people on the main board offer commentary about players, schemes, coaches and GMs'. That's not a knock, just an observation--but your commitment to learning what you can, and the time invested is admirable. I haven't done that, likely won't anytime soon, and in that regard, Star > Leh-nerd. True, I know how to spell 'patriot', but how many times is that going to carry the day in a debate?

Sherpa has been forthcoming on his experience, consistently over time, and over several different topics on the main board and ppp. I may have missed your background if you shared, do you have military training, background in leadership/planning?

Or the couch’s of producers, directors, actors, actresses and those who supported them for, like, ever. Super weird.

Ah, check your privilege—-the topic is weirdos /weird. Andy1 commented on the subject and suggested someone was in a “cult”, which is kind of weird in and of itself given what bothered him on Rosanne’s post (which is weird). I replied with a question about another celebrity figure, who most definitely exhibited very weird behavior and who partnered with well known politicians of a different stripe. I skipped the National Enquire-esque conspiracy theories about cults and secret societies (unlike Andy, I might add), and asked what he thought about that? See, it seems to me you’re not advocating for keeping things on topic, it seems you’re intolerant of the opinions of others and think everyone should think like you, which, maybe isn’t weird but a bit odd. I cannot oblige.

Well, let’s look at some other Hollywood celebrities and their proclivities. Harvey Weinstein…weird or no?

Would the US government do that, do you think?

I've been reading your posts, thanks for sharing your thoughtful comments. I'm probably not a centrist, likely more center right and can understand the character concerns about Trump. Full disclosure, it seems to me as a nation we're all sorts of comfortable with all sorts of politicians who lack moral character and fail at leadership tests (we've had perjurers, predators, politicians who sent American soldiers to be brutalized/die in war(s) over false pretenses, presidents who completely disregard the law regarding safe-keeping of classified documents, who have propped up dictators in foreign lands, misinformation, deception and a whole lot who seem to have a disconnect between what's really true and the truth as they spin it). Personally, I think the 'character' discussion is a great philosophical argument, but falls apart when reality comes into play. You've indicated that Trump divided the nation. The reality as I see it is that after the election of 2016, the nation should have been unified. The electorate considered the successes/failures of the previous admin, considered the hand-selected successor v the outside the beltway candidate, and delivered an unquestionably decisive victory to the new president. What is more American than that? A clear winner chosen, a chance to start anew, and a chance to move forward together. That didn't happen. Quite the opposite occurred. From any reasonable perspective, they supersized division and made it a centerpiece of their platform moving forward. Did you see an attempt at unity from the democrats commencing in January, 2017 when Trump was inaugurated?