leh-nerd skin-erd

Ah, "other than". I follow.

Well, on the bright side, it's nice when a media outlet acknowledges that it's not really all that interested in divergent voices being heard during these turbulent times. Better to acknowledge the echo chamber on the front end.

I won't debate the exceptionalism of Mayor Pete, other than to say when they have to tag you with a catchy name like "Mayor Pete", you may be lacking in the credential's department. However: "Elaine Chao" is reduced to "being from a very wealthy family" and married to Mitch McConnell? Educated at Dartmouth, Harvard MBA. Executive at Bank of America and CitiBank. Extensive experience in govt for Reagan and HW Bush. Director of Peace Corp. President of United Way. Jeesh.

If true, I think Al is ultimately a victim here. He's spent considerable time, money and effort to buy someone else's ability to pollute the planet on a massive scale, only to find it may have been for naught. #tragic

Interesting...I don't listen to Joe Rogan, have no idea what "All In" is, my podcasts (thus far) are limited to financial hosts/channels, and am unfamiliar with Bari Weiss. My social media presence is a Fb page started to follow my children, that has now grown to tens and tens of friends. However, I have to acknowledges that your timing and delivery on this one was spot on--I was waiting on an appointment at my doctor's office and I'm sure they were wondering what I was laughing at as I read your reply.

Let's see...mind-melders, grandmas, grandpas and....warriors, power-consumers, and financiers. Innovative. Thought provoking. Fascinating. I am in the "Consider the agenda while processing what they have to offer" category.

That was painful.

Comrade Kay likely will dismiss dialogue on the potato sack Ms Lennox is wearing (I was never really a fan of Eurythmics, btw, the music just seemed heavy to me), and speak to the huge impact the vinyl age of records had on the environment.

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?