leh-nerd skin-erd

Ok, come on. "Especially bananas and coffee"? What kind of freaky stuff do you city folk have going on that an increase in bananas and coffee causes such stress? Roundy to partygoers: "Ok people, listen up! Banana prices are through the roof, so a maximum of 5 per pairing!"

Nope, not on the terms as you've laid them out. There is literally no reason to wait until the government forces you to contribute when you can start today.

Glad to hear how you laid that out. This reflects the thinking of every compassionate, charitable conservative I know. Our money. Our choice. Our right. Where we take different paths is: I recognize that in addition to what I give, there is what I keep for things that are important to me. Retirement. Legacy. Children. Travel. Family. Once I earn the money, figure the charities I wish to donate to, and pay my taxes, I'm done with the dialogue. You, on the other hand, follow exactly the same path but then attempt to cloak yourself in righteousness by pointing the finger at everyone who should pay more, excluding yourself. It really just boils down to a lot of wealthy and really wealthy people talking a good game but never actually intending to participate. Nothing new here. Amen.

Bill Gates is an interesting subject. He could give away 95% of his fortune to the government and remain one of the richest people in the history of the world. He could give 10% directly to the government, today, and remain one of the wealthiest of some extraordinarily wealthy people on the planet at this time. Instead, he does things on his time, in his way, based on his discretion while icing the government completely out of the equation beyond what he is compelled to give. He gives both selflessly and selfishly. There's the trouble, and there are few other issues that don't quite square what he says with what he actually does. In that regard, yes, you're in that company. The problem is that you and he collectively refuse to do that which you demand that others do. You participate in the Annual Civic Club Car Wash and Cotillion and complain about people like you who don't want to do what people like you want everyone else to do. Anyway, you're correct that we've been through this before and that's just the nature of many liberals. Correct.

We'll get through it, Bill, hang in there. Btw I was just thinking about a pastry shoppe in Brugge. Delightful croissants and the service impeccable.

I'm suggesting that most people won't think about Canada today, tomorrow, next week, or next year. I don't say that with malice, or in an attempt to be dismissive. I feel like pretty much everyone knows this. It's not unlike the fact that most Americans in, say NYS, won't think about some of the other very cool places in our country. Council Bluffs, Iowa. Boise, Idaho. Midland, Texas. Sedona, Az. I don't think I'm wrong on this--but it's entirely possible that you were up last night worrying about the condition of the bridges in/around Saskatoon, but I think that would probably make you unique.

I thought that might have been the case. Thanks for the reply.

You're the definition of a limousine liberal, in thought, word and deed. You constantly talk about educated, affluent liberals, and the math supports the notion that if you moved collectively, as a group, significant progress could be made. Start with a few billionaires contributing billions, move on to those with hundreds of millions, contributing hundreds of millions, move on to tens of millions giving tens of millions, single digit millionaires doing their part, phasing out as you go. You collectively could make a huge dent, but instead decide to wait until the government compels you to do it. It's a really odd thing to witness.

Most American's couldn't tell you the name of the Prime Minister of Canada, the major import/exports, the political structure, political parties, the make up of their parliament, the GDP, contributions to NATO, the largest city, ethnic makeup, history of indigenous people, their approach to immigration, or who Tim Horton was. Liekwise, most Canadians likely know very little about the US and how everything operates. That's not apathy, or indifference, it's just that most people live their lives on a local level. Certainly, most would hope for the best for our neighbors to the north, and I certainly do. Like many in WNY, I spent many summers across the bridge with Canadian family members, travelled and camped in Ontario, and got the obligatory car tossing on the way to a concert in Toronto one year at the PB. We'll get through it, we always do.

As I said, good luck with that China thing. As for selfish behavior, given our long alliance with Canada, have your people ever exhibited selfish tendencies? I'm thinking, yes.

Thank goodness. I wasn’t sure if I was reading a double negative and even with you having some rather extreme beliefs (based on my perspective anyway), I couldn’t really see you supporting that.

The liberal wing of the Dem party suggested the wealthy paying more was the answer. It’s true, JB, KH, Liz Warren, Oprah and more suggested this was the way. Our local libs ran with that, parrot the talking points, and if Fergie is the example, rage against the machine from the 19th hole at an exclusive golf club drinking an ice cold import while planning his next trip to a Cuban beach devoid of actual Cubans. It would be simple and effective to get to work on saving the world, but we don’t hear much about that. Maybe they mean the other wealthy, not the “them” wealthy. Thanks for this PSA about the Gift fund est 1843. This will help the few who want to help the many. Ps: Kudos to you for doing the Lord’s work here, JD.

I don’t think most Americans care what the rest of the world thinks. Just like most Canadians, Europeans and beyond, they consider their own self-interest first, the greater good second, and the world beyond thereafter. I think when they do think about it, they consider social/societal differences, then maybe way that out considering as much info as they can get their hands on, consider issues that appear hypocritical and probably just move on. God bless your relationship with China, that’s a government you can trust. ✊🏻

We had an issue on vacation quite a few years ago where a non-official fireworks gathering went awry. One person in our group ended up with her hair smoldering briefly before her mom put it out. Some of this sh8t is out of control. Be that as it may, it’s interesting that you could decide to forgo the festivities, be safely hunkered down in an area free of fireworks, yet get a fine for owning a house when neighbors, kids or ne’er-do-wells decide to light off some fireworks.

I try and stay out of most of these posts, but if I’m reading it correctly, you have no issues with Muslims making death threats over political cartoons? What’s the false equivalency?

Big News took eventually took us out, but we were a proud and scrappy bunch.

This guy is describing the MSM approach over the past 10+ years and apparently thinks his suggestion is somehow new and fresh. He should probably Google "trust in media".

Of course they do. The notion that additional time, dialogue and negotiation was an option v an armed raid is discounted. As does the fact that after multiple hours and complete control of the premises, the DOJ allegedly grabbed tax information and correspondence between Trump and his attorney. Thereafter, the resistance of the DOJ to the notion of an impartial Special Master to weed through the data was a red flag. I think Chi will argue that this is simply a reflection of the purity of the law, the essential application of the hand of justice. I’d argue that the application of simple, honest and straightforward event management would include dialogue about how to avoid any appearance of impropriety. On the other hand, it turned out that the Smith approach likely led, at least in part, to Trump return to the White House. In that regard, the Chi’s of the world played a key role in that. Complete clusterf*ck.

I was comparing outcomes, and your comments regarding apples, oranges, legal v political were fine. Your comment regarding a “stunt for ignorant” was standard fare from the typical Biden voter who fancies himself enlightened in spite of…well, well, just about everything Joe Biden. You didn’t stop there, though, and shared some graphic mental imagery regarding boot licking. While I have no doubt you would hold court on “apples v oranges”, the question is really would you characterize someone you disagreed with as a boot licker at the office? At a neighborhood block party? When ordering a coffee at Dunkin’? Oh—when working out at the local gym—would you tell the guy on the bench press who lingered a bit to “Get it moving, ya damn boot licker?”. I think you probably wouldn’t. For some reason here, in a silly conversation about political prosecutions in one of the dirtiest and grimiest political places on the planet, you felt it appropriate.

I wasn’t talking about questions on apples v oranges, and of course you know that. It’s all good though, sometimes people surprise you. Have a good night.

Imagine, politics and legal matters entwining for the first time in the history of the world. All I can tell you is you put Jack Smith on this latest investigation, it might lead to a Comey Brennan ‘28 ticket. Not because of legal shortcomings but because of…well, you know. Beyond that, it seems that some of you people are coming a bit unglued and offering some weird comments that didn’t come up when Biden was beating up Medicare and wandering off at summits. Where are your personal standards? Is that how you carry yourself at work when you disagree or have an issue with an admin assistant or paralegal? You accuse them of licking boots? When the headset fails in the middle of a phone call with an important client, are you calling the customer service line and demanding they lick your Gucci loafers? Pull it together.

Or the Jack Smith prosecution. Someone’s always eating something, I guess.

I think his point was to sell outrage, which elevates his profile, which he likely believes directly leads to an opportunity to increase his value as a political observer. It’s usually about the benjamins.

Apologies for offending, but your post came in as more than a bit sanctimonious in a thread where the OP appealed for no bickering. This second post isn't much better, but at least on that one I can understand that what I typed offended/aggravated you. I was mostly just messing around, I certainly have been accused of being sanctimonious, wordy, verbose etc and don't take it personally. In the spirit of the OP, though, it's on me, and I am sorry.

Andy was just reminding others that those who believe in douchey posts have a place in the world, too.