leh-nerd skin-erd

I see the aggressor as bad. I see the nation, more accurately the citizens, being bombarded as victims. I remain unconvinced that Ukraine is a bastion of democracy, mostly because there seems to be a history of corruption associated with the government. The fact that the US is providing assistance to Ukraine in no way means they are above question or reproach. There is ample history of the US government assisting governments, dictators and some not-so-great people. That said, Ukraine could be a democratic Utopia as you believe, I just don't know that to be true. Language, Tibsy, language! H E 🏒 🏒 conveys a similar meaning but doesn't expose tender ears to your vulgarity. As for election attacks, I accept that Russia has, is, and will attempt to impact our elections. It's common knowledge that governments do these things. Look at Ch. Schumer and his comments on Israel. They got you all riled up, but it's the same old same old. Think Saudi government, and you and your liberal kinfolk getting all torn about MBS for 5 minutes under one administration, raging about how your man Biden was going to bust him up when he got in until, suddenly, he's in, nothing happens, he's besties with MBS and you're booking your trip to Sandals Riyadh. Some things just are, my friend.

We already agreed on the Burisma connection. Moveon.com! I don't know what this means to you, but censorship and withholding/manipulation of the truth is alive and well---and it seems that everyone with a pulse agrees on that. You might say it's one side, I might think it's the other, but the masses are still yearning for an honest, ethical free press. I'll circle back to where I started. I could not tell you a bit about Ukraine, Russia, borders, culture, and who seized who(m)'s lands, who misappropriated what, and what percentage of the Ukrainian population might well want to return to Mother Russia (though from wiki, the population is 17% Russian, which makes me wonder). I can't tell you about hostilities, who said what to whom, and who has partnered with what foreign adversary. I will say I am extraordinarily cautious on declaring any side 'the good guys' to the extent I believe there are only a few isolated instances of torture by a rogue band of soldiers. That defies common sense. No argument. If you have to pick a side, I agree you pick the lesser of two evils, and one that more closely aligns with our nation's strategic interest. Russia hasn't fit that bill since just before the election of 2016. Besides, after JB famously got rid of that one bad apple in a country of 33 million people, we can sleep easy at night knowing our money and weapons are going to a corruption free zone.

Yes, I think that expression has broad application in life, and try to consider the perspective of the other party when speaking on subjects that are interesting to me. With respect to La Ron’s post, the added layer of complexity is the tone and direction of reporting coming out of the conflict. As we have so often seen, an administration can flex its muscles to encourage stories be told in a certain way, with certain facts revealed and others withheld. My point simply was while the Ukrainians may well be skilled, effective and disciplined fighters who follow such strict rules of engagement that acts of vengeance and rapidly dispensed field justice are few and far between, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Interesting thoughts—a little extreme with the cult talk as you advocate for the slaughter of generations of plant life, and a tad Mao-esque for my tastes, but no one liked acid rain, and forests are mose def cool if you look beyond all those darn trees.

“Sunny”. Oh, the irony of it all.

I don’t know anything about the region, and a Burisma connection seems unreasonably convenient. It would fall into the “50+ of our most experienced intelligence experts declare a laptop to be Russian malfeasance right before a highly contentious presidential election” convenient, but that’s a different discussion. With respect to Ukrainian activity, I’d think it’s fair to consider whether or not “occasional rogue incidents” accurately reflects what’s going on there. It would seem unlikely that one side is practicing barbarism on the scale of 10/7, and the other maintaining operational and ethical discipline while in a fight to the death.

Hi Mup, We chose a similar path with our children, and considered it an investment in their future to do so. However, we had some pretty basic rules. Attention to their grades and scholastic performance was required. We focused on state school tuition, room and board, books etc. Beyond that, it was on them to figure out the math and as it turned out, they did. Part of that math, btw, involved our own commitment to work longer than we might otherwise have to. We did our level best to guide them, and while we made mistakes, two pieces of critical feedback was shared time and again: No, you can't do that; That doesn't make any sense; I've known many, many people who followed a similar path, and of course many who didn't. I have made mistakes on purchases, investments, and some things I thought I knew to be true turned out not to be true after all. I can understand renegotiating debt, changing the terms of the loan, and in appropriate cases, bankruptcy being considered as an option for students in need. I can also understand special terms for students with special needs, single parent assistance, and so many other things that address difficult circumstances. This ain't that. The democrat/Biden plan is to grab votes by treating individuals as simpletons incapable of performing basic math, devaluing higher education and at the same time, doing basically nothing to address a key player in the supposed scheme--colleges/universities/endowments that run in the hundreds of millions--is absurd and as Frankish indicated, illegal. But yes, if President Biden and the democrats offered to relieve a monthly car lease payment, or shift 50% of a person's rent/mortgage to other math-proficient citizens of the community, it does indeed remove a weight of sorts from one party....and places it on another. The problem there is it blesses some of the wrong people, politically speaking.

It's only different when you remove objective analysis from the equation. It's hard to imagine a fresh-faced law student arguing passionately how the laws designed to safeguard our national security are pliable enough to allow to accommodate the barnyard explosion of silliness we have seen with Biden, Clinton and Trump. I can see an ideologue running with it, or perhaps an experienced and completely cynical attorney who recognizes an uphill political battle where the law isn't really a big deal, but someone who actually cared?

So is this illegal of the "No one is above the law" variety, the "No one really cares as long as it's their guy breaking the law" category, the "We're against illegal activity but this is less illegally illegal than what you're guy is doing" category, the "We need the DOJ to knock down some doors and seize some unrelated attorney/client privilege" category, or the "This requires life in prison!" category? Yeah, you can usually tell the people who really need the government to reallocate their debt obligations--they tend to make connections like this.

This was a particularly fascinating time in history—the massive gatherings, the rest of the compliant world existed under threat of civil/criminal penalty, the medical community murmured and a virus apparently hovered. Meanwhile, limousine liberals supported the spread and raged about vax hesitancy.

This post is like an abstract painting, where one can see what they want to see, or see nothing at all. For me, the part about the “Jesus” clause is pure poetry. On the other hand, I was speaking with a group of friends in my book club the other day, and the topic of where we got spat out from came up. It grew contentious so we tabled it for another day.

Men lost what, Daz?

My goodness, what a timid lady. She lobs a softball question, must certainly assume he'll answer it to the extent that she can move on and provide cover for him...and he gets hung up on how to search for records? True, he tried the national security angle, which is quite laughable given what we now know, but for goodness sake she should have some level of professionalism and point out the absurdity of his position.

Does San Francisco have any nearby wet markets in case this gets wonky?

Somewhere, a liberal is devising a magma tax to offset the effects of magma magmatizing.

Listen, you’re every bit as much a true believer as I am a grand conspiracy theorist talking about golden toilets. I’ll repeat what I’ve said previously. 75% of the people running for Prez/VP in 2020 violated the law as described by James Comey in my post above. I’d hazard a guess that if someone did a little snooping around on Kamala Harris, that number would be 100%. In 2016, Hillary Clinton violated the law as described by James Comey as outlined above. Pence, given his recent admission probably did as well, and it’s likely that Tim Kaine likely did as well. Why? Because the standard seems well-established. It’s a thing people like that do. So, if there are rules that people—high profile, top of government types——live by, it’s perfectly logical to assume that the system isn’t broken, their actions define the system. None of that, of course, addresses Biden’s actions, which were quite extreme indeed. He had &$#@ stashed everywhere, decades in the making, with no safeguards in place, running his mouth, and the allegation is that potentially critical information was destroyed in spite of the SC investigation, all perfectly acceptable in the context of protecting national security as if that really is a thing. Trump did what he did—-he exposed his throat to political enemies intent on his destruction and that’s on him. I’ll pass, however on the ginned up outrage on obstruction in light of all that we already know, and with the understanding that’s likely just the tip of the iceberg. One need not be a lawyer to see this entire process is a giant steaming pile of 🤬. Getting back to the original point, yeah, Jack Smith is probably pretty good.

Jeez, between crazy "grand conspiracy" talk, golden toilets and money laundering through Iran, I feel like I tuned in to hump day on The View. You would be in the Joy Behar role. It seems silly to argue with a true believer, so I'll leave it at this. If you're certain there are not political, personal or power plays in government, you haven't been paying attention. If you're certain that every person is treated in the same way, every time as the wheels of justice grind onward, you're incredibly naive. Here's what I know. In the old days, back when LL Cool James Comey spoke about Hillary Clinton, he stated the following: Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities. After detailing the evidence that the FBI found evidence that classified information was: Improperly stored; On a personal system; in violation of a federal statute..making it a felony to mishandle...intentionally or in a grossly negligent way... ...And so on. He indicated that no reasonable prosecutor would bring an action against her, for activity that seems quite clearly criminal based on the standards as he shared them. I'll move past the part where what's "unreasonable" to one person may be quite "reasonable" to another (and both might be considered reasonable), and that stating that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case is wholly and not subtly different than "no evidence of a crime was found". When we look to Biden's activities, we know that after declaring Trump's behavior outrageous, Team Biden supersized reckless disregards and intentional acts, including sharing classified documents and material with people not authorized to receive said information, over a number of years and as a public and private citizen. Additionally, at a bare minimum, the appearance of obstructive behavior by a number of parties occurred in the wake of the investigation, and Old Scranton Joe declared himself the victim of a witch hunt to boot. The outcome? Today's version of "no reasonable prosecutor" for what are obvious criminal acts as described by the former director of the FBI. Which bring me back to my point. If one were to consider reasonable and fair treatment as the goal, and laws that were broken were really only pretend/maybe laws that no one really follows (though Comey did suggest that others in the same situation might face adverse actions), why would it be unreasonable to think a few boxes in the steam room were anything to worry about as it relates to an armed raid, or life in prison? No, sir, it's ok to be a true believer in the decency of all parties involved, but the reality is that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and potentially Mike Pence were actually, literally above the law.

No, you’re wrong here. It borders on the absurd to think that the controls supposedly in place to protect our national secrets in a post 9/11 world are simply broken. It’s infinitely more likely that Biden’s actions (and Clinton’s and Pence) represent the standard, not the exception. That is to say, powerful people are often above the law, and what passes for an explanation to the masses starts with some vague explanation of shrinkage and ultimately morphs into how acceptable it is to reveal classified documents and/or leave top secret info wherever the 🤬you want so long as you’re part of the inside crew. I’m under no illusion that Trumps case is the same as Biden’s case. I accepted long ago that certain people are in a protected class while others are not. Whether Trump returned material or not, the Biden DOJ was coming for him. All it takes is a novel theory of prosecution, or an aggressive prosecutor, or enough political support and popular support. All this does is bring me back to the beginning. The government is a very formidable foe, and holds all the cards. It’s nothing new.

I would hope so. He's perpetually playing with a significant home field advantage. Since this began, he's controlled the raid, what was taken within the scope of what was supposed to be taken, what was seized outside the scope of what was supposed to be taken, the leaks that shape the public narrative---all with the full scope, weight an authority of the US government. In addition, he is unrestrained by budgetary or personnel concerns, the ability to formulate legal tactics without concern as to the cost of research v probability of success, and ultimately, no financial downside to him or anyone on his team if he does not prevail in this matter. In addition, it seems obvious that there is anarchy when it comes to the handling of classified/top secret material at the highest levels of our government. It seems there are no safeguards, no hard and fast rules on who can do what, and what the punishment might look like for those that stray. That feeds into the narrative in a big way, imo, providing cover to him with the rather odd notion that anarchy and blatant disregard for the rules by high ranking, obviously well-informed politicians with decades of experience in handling classified materials is fair, reasonable and completely acceptable behavior. Jack Smith has the political power, time, money and power to be the tsunami. It would be quite amazing if he wasn't.

Decide what, exactly, Tibs? You suggested that at some point, the right to choose gives way to the right to life. Those were your words. Now, it seems you're willing to cede control of what you think, and why you think it? Seems you thought something then, but suddenly are weak in the knees about it? I have no interest in surrendering my opinion or vote because someone else thought they knew better, nor would I ever suggest my wife or daughter do that. You're free to submit to those you feel known better than you, but you lack the standing to ask others to follow your descent into subjugation.

She's got game for sure. I like her style.

the frankish reich = blossoming musk-eteer-er?

Good for you, Tibs, to acknowledge at some point, you become pro-life. What point in a normal, healthy pregnancy is that for you? What would you think is a reasonable point for our society to transition from the right of a person to terminate a pregnancy, to concern for the life of the child? Let’s assume carve outs exist for reasons such as sexual assault, etc.

Ah, you’re referring to the southern Rapture, when everything was one way then suddenly it became something else. The phrase “pretty simple” definitely applies to your analysis!

I understand why the officer shot her that day, or at least try to understand the fear and adrenaline that likely drove him to shoot her at that point in time, on that particular day. However, the response from liberals and democrats (politicians especially) is quite telling. All the supposed outrage over officers, use of force and how/what they should do was immediately and summarily dismissed. Suddenly, it was ok to shoot to kill--they just need the deceased to meet certain criteria. Suddenly, it was ok to shoot an unarmed individual. Suddenly it was ok to for a male officer to dispatch a female. Suddenly, it was ok--and heroic, in fact, for a highly skilled/trained law enforcement officer to kill an unarmed female with no warning shot, no extended conversation, and no attempt to disable with a shot to the leg. All you need for people to abandon their principles is the right type of victim and/or risk that hits close to home. Maybe why we see this today: https://nypost.com/2024/03/29/us-news/kathy-hochul-leaves-nypd-officer-jonathan-dillers-wake-after-confrontation/