leh-nerd skin-erd

I heard he was willing to go down in a blaze of glory!

He’s getting on in years, the Kemper. He’s not a hundred billion three hundred trillion million like Joe talks about, but he’s got some miles on the tires. He may well have understood back in the day.

Then there is nothing for you to be concerned with.

You should exercise the ability, at least every now and again. Next up, you’ll be advocating a safe space for Hunter to be interviewed in!

No, I meant what I said--your posting history shows that you're squarely in the Joe Biden camp, and it seems to me that Hunter comes along for the ride. What's odd is that he's violated federal firearm statutes, he was a 1% wage earner and completely disregarded his tax obligations, he's a dead beat dad, had an affair with the widow of his deceased brother, worked for a corrupt energy company in a corrupt country, and here you are banging the table for special treatment because you're worried about the fallout from what he might say. Why? Imo, it's because he's a Biden. This guy represents just about everything that common sense liberal and conservative voters rail against...but not you.

While highly unlikely, given your advanced age, club foot and lazy eye, it still could happen. Dare to dream. I think if he believes it, it's true on some level.

No, not something else, in addition too. Maddow would obv ask about 1/6, but she had been quite vocal about the Cheney involvement in the Iraq war. I don't understand why she would pass up the opportunity that she was waiting for. I guess Maddow is like a lot of folks, you maybe, where the outrage machine points you in a given direction until something new comes along.

Jeesh, how would I know? That was a liberal talking point on the run up to the Obama election. It pretty much dropped off the map when Obama won, which seemed very odd to me. That's the reason I asked about Maddow and her interview--perfect time to ask Liz what she knew, and when she knew it. That it dates to 2007 is irrelevant imo.

I'll stay out of the Khashogi discussion, beyond stating the obvious: The US government has proclaimed the Saudi's to be our valued ally, and Biden would have been well-within his rights to send a clear message regarding the Khashogi matter to the Saudis when he took office. He did. The partnership continued and many would say improved. If you're upset by Kushner's partnership, you haven't been paying attention. R's providing transcripts is a good idea, assuming of course the transcripts are scrubbed and redacted where national security issues are involved.

No. I doubt we get to the truth to begin with, but be that as it may, I would assume his answers will be the same in public or closed door testimony. You seem concerned that his answers might vary? That's a consideration and up to the American people to decide. Observationally, it seems to me you're generally pretty cool with misquotes and insinuations when it happens to certain people, not so much when it happens to others. Still, if it happens, it happens. Let's also acknowledge that regardless of what Hunter says or does, his focus group people will be working on the spin that he's a victim of the system. You sound an awful lot like a Hunter Biden fan, actually. If the rules of engagement allow for closed door hearings, and the committee chooses to pursue accordingly, what you're pimping for is special consideration because you're fond of the old man.

I'm basing it on my perception of the typical bid-rigging, influence peddling, you-scratch-my-back-and-I-scratch-yours that permeates Washington and likely most state government(s). I also consider Biden's history, his friendships, his tendency to embellish and puff himself up, his obvious narcism, the special treatment his son has gotten from the government, and the fact that power corrupts. When I combine what I think, his absolute declaration that he knew nothing, and what the committee has released, it leads me to believe that he would use his influence to create opportunities for his dopey son, and look to benefit for doing so. If it turns out he's an unfortunate angel tainted by the stank of politics, I'm happy to acknowledge that at a later date. In the meantime, it just plays out. He knows that and has participated in just this sort of thing.

I was just kidding about the shaming, but I’m quite certain no one is scared about facing the Hunteream. It seems quite obvious Joe Biden was involved intimately in the business, and that makes his unconditional denial of any involvement quite odd. I’m willing to see where it goes, and polling suggests a majority of people believe he’s involved. As for public testimony, when every committee follows suit, every time, I’m all for it. In the meantime, the game has to be played the way it’s played. Get the popcorn ready!

Ok, fair enough, but reasonable people can disagree. Worst case scenario, it’s a political play. That would make it one of hundreds, if not thousands, of similar plays designed to sway the vote. That’s Washington for ya.

No, I think that’s silly and you’re education shaming. I also think you’re putting attorneys on a pedestal, and that’s sort of silly, too. I believe it’s because the committee wants to control the narrative. I don’t think there are any concerns, whatsoever, over H Biden’s intellect as a witness or the prowess of his legal team. I also think it’s a psychological play, designed to get inside Hunter’s head a bit. He’s a classic rich kid, protected and pampered by his father, used to getting his own way to the extent that he simply decided income tax was for suckers and knew his father would intervene to save him. By defining the terms, they establish control. I never suggested a public hearing would impede the truth—-I doubt Hunter Biden will be forthcoming about his father’s involvement in his business dealings and the money trail to China and Russia, but public testimony provides a road map for other witnesses to follow.

The Mueller investigation lasted two years, and did not have all the issues that a committee of this sort has to deal with it. We’ve got a president openly lying about his relationship with family members, money flowing backwards to hostile nations, the potential for undue influence, criminal actions with seemingly intentionally blown statutes, sweetheart deals rejected by a judge, and now a subject apparently defying congressional subpoenas. It all may be a big kerfuffle and misunderstanding over nothing, but I think we all want these questions answered. Besides, Ozark, the tv series, ran 4 seasons long over 5 years. This is just getting rolling.

That’s not how the committee wants to proceed, and it’s now about who benefits, or who doesn’t…it’s about the truth.

Well, RM is interviewing Liz and her thoughts on 1/6, but not all that long ago RM was pitching Liz as someone who was dangerous, cannot be trusted, who supported the Iraq war, and who's father allegedly fabricated evidence that lead to the invasion and millions of people impacted. Back then, Daddy Cheney and Liz were the threat. Now, as she preps to run for president, why wouldn't RM want to discuss her past? Wouldn't she want to say, at least, "Listen Liz, thanks for the book on 1/6, but you're dangerous af, too!"? Maybe it happened during the commercials. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2007/01/23/retreat-isnt-an-option/b2f660a3-f908-4362-88fc-fac8b6843fda/ Liz Cheney, before you loved her.

I was confused on why he was asking me to ask you about something I asked him about Rachel Maddow.

I'm uncertain of what exactly you're suggesting. RM has been quite vocal about wanting to get Liz's dad Dick on for an interview, and also vocal about interviewing LIz Cheney herself. I supported the Iraq war because of the information shared with the American people, and questions accusations that Bush and Cheney (and people like Hillary and Biden, too) lied about intelligence and mislead the public. What struck me as really weird was after BO won the race for president, and Bush and Cheney left office...nothing ever came of it. Next thing you know, Barrack, Michelle, W and Barbara are the closest of friends. It was confusing. I just wondered if RM asked Liz about all that. Jeesh.

Did RM get a chance to ask Liz about her father, the Iraq war and all the heartache and suffering Liz brought about before 1/6? That was a big deal.

I'm not here to argue or criticize Biden's response, US involvement, aid to Israel or Palestine, but I think it takes someone with a really poor vision looking from really far away to declare our country is not directly involved in this conflict. Money, weapons, troop support, guidance, skirmishes, naval vessels deployed etc are all in play here. As for troops on the ground... https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3570670/us-military-continues-focus-on-supporting-israel-ukraine/ "I won't talk specific deployment locations for these forces, I can confirm that they are not going to Israel," Ryder said. The units and personnel are intended to support regional deterrence efforts and further bolster U.S. force protection capabilities. Ryder said that between October 17 and 26, U.S. and coalition forces have been attacked at least 12 separate times in Iraq and four separate times in Syria, by a mix of one-way attack drones and rockets. The general would not provide specific groups that have claimed responsibility for these attacks. All he would say is "we know that these groups are affiliated with Iran."

Not directly involved? From what perspective? Hamas? Palestine? Iran? Israel? By any objective measure, we are directly involved.

Wrong. You never suggested Biden was above reproach, and I never suggested you did. I responded multiple times that my issue was your comment on how it was unfair to Biden, like he lost first lead in the middle school production of House of Cards. He’s president, it’s completely fair to blame him based on 200+ years of American history. I understand your position. I don’t think it’s a coincidence you keep typing “fart left”, your argument stinks. ✌️

Your wording was problematic only in the sense that what you thought you were saying, and what you actually said, was not the same thing. If it helps you in some small way to assume I didn't understand what you didn't say, I'm happy to shoulder that burden. We can agree that Jan 6 was a stain on our nation. Interestingly, you stumbled upon something that has been quite troubling to me. You wrote: Thankfully they are observably stupid so you can usually see them coming from far off. If you, a guy who can't remember from one post to another what he wrote, can "see them coming from far off", how did a bunch of crazies overrun the Capitol in less time than it takes to get through the gate(s) at a Bills home game? And, why are three years in with so many questions unanswered as to who was responsible for security, how they completely missed the warning signs even you can see, and what has been done to ensure it never happens again?

You complained about fairness, L, like it's a thing in American politics. I'm surprised you're surprised someone called you out for that. On the 1/6 issue, you're getting turned around a bit. Your first post talked about the relative craziness of right v left in this way: The difference is I only see those people (far left) online. You won't believe me but they truly are a small, small portion of dem voters. While conservatives.....Qanon has hundreds of thousands of....whatever the F you call them, fans/advocates i guess. You have religious zealots openly advocating Christian Nationalism. Conspiracy theorists EVERYWHERE. There is nothing here to suggest you were limiting your comments to the events of January 6, you're thinking there were "hundreds of thousands" present on 1/6? Now, when discussing anarchists on the left, you suddenly want to shift gears to "I don't want to talk about those people!". I wouldn't want to talk about that either, if I was silly enough to offer an argument so quickly dispatched. L. Ron, if you completely disregard any aspects of rioting, civil commotion, death, destruction, and wrongdoing of any kind by the people you are looking to support, you'll be able to support your thesis that one side is full of crazies and the other (your) side just has some folks online. It will just be bullsh*t. Yikes.