leh-nerd skin-erd

I could be wrong, but believe Roundy is a proponent of something called The Rickshaw Revolution.

The problem with this line of thinking is that we can point to these examples (Obama and Biden) which reveal how government actually works in practice. How do we know this? Well, see Obama and Biden. Step back a bit further and we can look at the actions of the DOJ and special counsel and know that the government has allowable tolerance on the handling of national security (HRC) and holding, dissemination of classified material (Biden), and dealing with hostile foreign nationals attempting to derail free and fair elections (Clinton-Steele). We know that transparency and light in the darkness is the ideal, but we also know that the ideal is not the standard. If we look at your post, @Andy1 gives you a thumbs up for your post on hypocrisy, but we’re left to wonder why he would cast his lot with a Biden presidency when he was a critical advocate and co-conspirator in Obama’s actions? I think it’s because we recognize that government actually operates in ways contrary to the way it should. That’s the norm. That’s how it’s done. That’s the standard.

I see where you're going with this--Biden pardons Hunter. Trump pardons Walczak. Are you thinking Walczak is related to Biden? You're off the chain!

This is actually fake news, NB, and unless you believe in what the Frenchy's call "Le lapin de Pâques", pretty darn gullible.

Dear Mr. Pelley, Thank you for serving as the Keynote speaker for commencement ceremonies for the class of 2025. While we anticipated a speech focused on adventure, commitment, accomplishment and the opportunity that awaits our graduating Demon Deacons, taking the road less traveled and speaking at painful length about how everything in th world has turned to sh8t was interesting. While it was difficult to witness the abject terror and demoralization on the faces of many of our students, on the bright side, level setting to “Suck” as the most likely outcome for most will reduce the likelihood of discovering the futility of it all much later in life, when it’s too late to really embrace the suffering and live a lifetime of pain and suffering. You d#ck. Sincerely, Heywood Jabloughmay Dean of Students Wake Forest University

I mean it. B is a good poster, likable guy and the ladies say he's an absolute dreamboat. Cross between Ben Affleck and Carrot Top. As for putting someone on ignore, I don't agree. I don't have many on ignore, but there are exceptions. Turns out another poster and I had found common ground on a particular subject. Instead of focusing on common ground, he chose to misrepresent, lie and double down when offered an opportunity to correct the record, or if I was unclear, an opportunity for me to clear up a misunderstanding. Instead, he spent the next few posts crying about "DEFLECKSHHHHHHUUUUUUUUUUN!". That's his right as a poster, of course, but seems like a gigantic time waster for me.

One of my favorite posters. Calm, cool, collected. What makes you say what you say, Neddly?

I think like most issues, affluent, college educated voters will fall into one of three categories: 1. They don’t give a hoot about special deals for Harvard, pro or con, and are just moving along with life; 2. They skew R/I and believe an in-depth review of dollars spent/contributed and tax advantages provided to an/the institution is a positive thing; 3. They skew D/I and believe any questions about value/tax status are beneath the institution and whatever costs/tax privilege involved should not be questioned and are insufficient; Ironically, subgroup 3 is also most likely to demand personal loan obligations be transferred from them to some other party who took advantage of them--and if that loan was transferred to Harvard, Columbia, NYU or Chucky Cheese, they would be first in line to fill out the paperwork.

Honestly can’t wrap my head around that sort of commitment and repayment schedule. Good luck! We were fortunate—SUNY schools, some grants and reasonable cost. Good jobs post graduation and no confusion on who was obligated to repay the debt. When our children went to school, our plan was to pay for their education and we were fortunate enough to be able to do it. My one concern was skin in the game and the kids appreciating the investment. Thankfully, they got it, understood it and appreciated it.

It wasn’t meant to be a dig, I just thought it was a catchy slogan. T-shirt worthy. From my perspective, the more voices the better. Signed, Ilk Peace out sister!

Yes, but part of the system.

Quite a life. Major power broker in NYC, public servant, leveraged power to bend the rules in his favor, more than a few ethical lapses and probably many more undisclosed or uncovered. I will say though—an honest retelling of his life and experiences would probably be a pretty fascinating read. He was in the mix during some very interesting, turbulent and historic times!

Never forget that “Kindness without mind-ness is blindness.”

Ah, ok. Of course, the pardon is part of the system, too, when properly applied.

I would not advocate for a pardon for Chauvin. Still, what you’re suggesting is that the current admin should do the right thing when the prior administration did not. It’s pretty common for people supporting the new admin to suggest “You first”.

I agree the decisions GF made that day were part of the problem, and of all the issues that day, his fentanyl use is the biggest issue I have with the question of what actually killed him. I also see a tremendous downside to being on the jury and voting to acquit—angry mobs would be a problem. I can certainly understand a person looking at the video, the prosecution case—and thinking it’s a whole lot easier to convict the guy than deal with the fallout from acquittal.

These are hot topic items Mup, and strong feelings are to be expected. Personally, I don’t have a problem discussing all aspects of the case, I don’t think we do anyone any favors pretending things that are obvious are irrelevant. Anyway, enough of this for one night.

I didn’t read it that way, I read it as Mupp’s feelings of a human being appearing to show disregard for another human being. The reality is a jury found the guy guilty, and sentenced accordingly. I recall somewhere along the line you indicating you wrestled, as did I a long, long time ago. One of the first things the coach taught us was if you were complaining about being choked, you weren’t choking. Still, there were some days it sure felt that way especially under duress. I also understand what you’re saying about officer safety, but in a few conversations with friends in law enforcement, they point out the reasonableness of response given the situation they are in. At the point GF is cuffed and on the ground, perhaps a more reasonable officer handles things differently.

I asked you for your thoughts on the Michael Brown case because you made the comments on video evidence. I wasn’t talking about Chauvin, but you were apparently. That sorta got us back on the fentanyl issue. I forgot to mention in the car accident scenario, you were also driving under the influence with a BAC of .14 before you hit the other car. Be that as it may, all good. Nor did I take it that way, Mup. 4th likes a good negative spin though.

If the perp dies due to a drug overdose, the cause of his death was his decision to take a drug and overdose. If you rear end another vehicle and the driver subsequently dies because of fentanyl abuse during an argument, how much time you willing to do?

Hmm. What do I think? Video evidence is important, but doesn’t tell the whole story. If fentanyl caused the death of a suspect in a scuffle with an officer, charges may be appropriate against an officer but murder seems unreasonable to me.

I wonder your thoughts on the Michael Brown shooting? I’ll summarize and suggest that a multiple reviews lead to the conclusion was justified, though obviously tragic for the officer and Brown’s family. I ask because your comment about the incident not being on camera and what might have happened here. The lack of video evidence in the Brown case allowed for all sorts of narratives. Btw, if you prefer not to get dragged into this further, I understand. Just wondering.

I think the plan was to remove establishment loyalists from the DOJ, and certainly the Trump admin has attempted to do that. Unfortunately, the federal court system makes the removal of many of these people exceptionally difficult. Classic case of tail wagging dog.

Great point—that would be Trumpian indeed.

There’s the emotional side of an argument, and the legal side of an argument. Considered from the big picture perspective, the vast majority of people would tend to support due process and a fair and just legal process from start to finish. Of course, we know when humans and personalities get involved, fair and just are subjective terms. OJ Simpson comes to mind. On the other hand, on a local level, when the system fails an individual or community, the lofty notion of due process becomes a bit more complicated. The takeover of the apartment complex in Colorado comes to mind. In that case, the system—the judicial system, law enforcement, ICE, etc, fails the tax paying citizen in spectacular fashion. Who could blame those people for being incredibly grateful for the removal and deportation of victimizers absent the long, laborious legal system that allowed the activity to flourish to begin with? Put another way…show me the federal judge or defense attorney supporting crime and violence in his/her neighborhood and not using every tool or trick in the tool box to protect his/her family and I’ll show you an exceptionally rare person.