leh-nerd skin-erd

I think the protocol would be to “get real” much, much sooner than this. One would hope the major media outlets would investigate, using their vaunted inside sources for the greater good, and not shoulder shrug now that they were duped….or that it was someone else’s fault. But, since we cannot trust political operatives to do the right thing, and the media is not trustworthy, we do what we can do—support the agenda that most closely aligns with your values.

With respect to the title of your post, I’m not sure his decline was worse than it seemed. He was making up words, struggling to stay on point and had trouble recalling details of his son’s death. This interview seems to follow the trajectory of what we saw the entire time.

Maybe I think I meant Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving where people get up early to get in line and buy all sorts of blue chippers at a discount! It’s crazy! Yes, I meant Black Monday. My bad there, but beyond that, it’s possible you’re correct and I’m wrong. I typically deal with what’s in front of me, and try not to worry too much beyond that. I’m not always successful, but that’s the goal.

I don't poke any hornets nest, and that loser wasn't a hornet, he's a murderous coward. Someone is always furious. Eric Rudolph was furious. James Kopp was furious. Ted Kaczynski was furious. They all had people who understood them, fed up with a broken system as they saw it. You understand where he's coming from, which is in the darkness along a street corner with a gun, ready to ambush a guy who was likely trying to figure out whether he should get the burrito or three taco special at the local Chipolte. That's a dark rabbit hole you're going down.

And I’m responding to your post specifically when you suggest people will get what they deserve. Based on the actions of extreme (and sadly formerly moderate liberals), what was deserved before a Chauvin pardon was an execution style murder in the street by a lunatic. I think that people who support Mangione and contribute to his wealth fund give less than a cr@p about habeus corpus. So I ask you…should Trump federally pardon Chauvin, what comes next? Will it be worse than the execution of Brian Thompson? Is that what you’re advocating for?

Except there were substantial concerns about the potential for market corrections in the 10% range all throughout 2024, as there typically are after substantial increases. So, in adding that to the mix, with fear and hysteria at a fever pitch, and players set to profit off turmoil, again, the resilience was impressive. I’m not that far off from retirement, but cooler heads typically prevail. WW2. Vietnam. Watergate. 2008. Black Friday. Historical trends. I acknowledge Trumps actions impacted the markets. To what degree and what that ultimately means cannot be measured in Fergie’s concerns about his pharmaceuticals over an 34 day period, or the a revisting of the Carter years. What happened post Carter? What was the appropriate course of action thereafter? Both rhetorical questions, of course.

“Bring it on” from the crowd that applauds and financially incentivizes a s-bag like Luigi Mangione. What next in your “deserve every single thing” Roundy? How do your people build on that one? Derek Chauvin should not be pardoned, imo, though it certainly seems like there are a lot of questions about what he was trained to do by the state. Those questions should be answered. That said, perp walking the hero of the extreme liberal left past Chauvin’s cell, down to max security, shutting the cell door for the duration of his life is appropriate.

I can understand how our friends on the left would get inspired by this clip of Biden calling out Trump. Still, you do have to wonder if they were a little uneasy when Biden dropped a tough guy line from a movie released in 1983. Certainly in retrospect, it seems quite likely Biden actually thought it was 1983, but really—-using a movie use from 40 years earlier? I’d bet none of the young people who helped elect Trump, who carried the day, would have any idea what that reference was all about. What a stooge.

The relative resilience of the market has been impressive. It’s not simply concern of tariffs or rising cost of good, its investor reaction and mood that must be considered. It’s actually pretty amazing to me the market has been relatively stable—we’ve had half the country or more panicking, predicting doom and gloom, and reaching out to embrace China in our dispute—-all because the major indexes dropped like a stone….to level we hadn’t seen in all of 30, 60, or 90 days. The thing is…30, 60, 90 days ago….I was pretty happy with where I was at as a long term investor. Ignoring the noise generated by those freaking out over short terms volatility helps.

And yet, the pigs lament.

Leo drama. 😀

Where do you think he was from the end of the Summer of BillSy until the sudden appearance of post-election Homey? I heard he was on the lam from 5-O.

I respectfully reject your apology, and no concession is necessary. A sincere apology comes without conditions. Here is an example, and to be clear, it's a fictional account of what might be an exchange between us: "I'm sorry I made fun of your haircut, Kay. It doesn't actually make you look like a mental patient." In your example, an exchange would be more like this: "I'm sorry I made fun of your haircut, Lehn. It's incredible of course, but I find myself quite distracted and unable to concentrate, so please consider wearing a hat." See the difference there? It's the old "Hat and the Haircut" paradigm, Kay. Let's just move forward, and I promise to consider the information shared in your posts for the nugget or two that might compel me to reconsider my view on the world.

The multiple evolving identities guy went with “Let’s be honest”. The commitment to pathological arrogance is impressive!

I can’t get past the fact that if condescension were intelligence as you have reimagined, it would be spelled differently. Or…would it? 🤫

I already told you what I think, and can’t think of any way to make it easier for you to understand. I feel like you’re going backwards here, Benjamin Button.

You’re very predictable regardless of your evolving screen names. You started the assumption game, lazy lad, and of course take issue when it’s returned upon you. Delightful. But on the bright side, we agree. Me, earlier today: You loved the outcome of the EJ Carroll civil case, but suddenly don’t like the outcome of the Babbitt civil case. You, now: No, that’s not it at all. I actually liked the outcome of the EJ Carroll civil case, I just don’t like the outcome of the Babbitt civil case. 🤦🏼‍♂️ One main difference of course—the Carroll case went to a jury, with the defendant willing to fight to the end. The DOJ case involves an acknowledgment a very high probability of an adverse outcome.

I don't know much about him, but saw that some people fire bombed his house. That'll rile you up a bit.

If the best she had to offer after a first encounter is a diatribe on all the reasons they think your politics suck, a bullet was most definitely dodged by @SCBills. I think the common refrain should be..ah, f it. Attractive is great, attractive can be fun but what a bore she likely is. I’m in the “just be you, but be a god version” of you camp. Put in the effort, respect the other person and see where it goes. You may not get as lucky as @The Frankish Reich, who, reading between the lines scored a threesome with ex and future wives, but you’ll be honest. @teef good to see you here and great post.

Muppalito, please have a private convo with das Comrade about opinions and this big beautiful world we all inhabit. I do my level best to get along but sometimes she goes full-on Mike Tyson on me and while I may be a big fat fatso as she says, I have feelings, you know? To quote Harry Chapin: There are so many colors in the rainbow, So many colors in the morning sun So many colors in a flower And I see every one. I'm just trying to be the best, most colorful flower I can be. Maybe you gals can have a convo on your way to the rest room at the next PPP summer pick a nick? I think you will be a good influence on her.

It pretty clearly says “multiple sources” Frank. In this history of our country, a legacy media source has never been wrong when there were multiple sources reporting. One sources? Yeah, it’s probably like 50/50. More than one? Book it, Danno. Plus, this is an EYEWITNESS news station, and eye witnesses actually see things with their eyes. Where did you go law school? Jeesh.

I think the first time you worried about law enforcement officials being in danger, or assaulted and beaten was when there was a political reason to do so. I think your posting history reveals, in fact, that you support an assault on a police officer so long as certain conditions are present. I supported the police officer who shot Ashli Babbit, you moron. I tried to put myself in his shoes, understand on whatever level the type of emotion, fear and adrenaline he was feeling as some lunatics were smashing through a glass barrier in attempt to gain access to a restricted area with officers on the other side with guns drawn. My general rule of thumb is as follows: 1. The officer’s job is to go home at night; 2. The officer has no idea the intent of the other party, or what weapons they may/may not have; 3. Facts leading up to the incident influence the outcome; 4. It’s extremely unlikely, and very rare, for an officer to want to shoot anyone in the chest and end their life; Still, you fools crowed about the outcome of civil cases like E Jane Carroll, completely oblivious to the things that impact the outcome of civil suits. Now, you don’t like the outcome. Venue matters. Emotion matters. What’s reasonable behavior is judged looking backwards and considering outcome. The relative likelihood of a positive or negative outcome is considered. When all is said and done, an unarmed female was dispatched without a warning shot fired, and during a time when multiple political figures talking about how things like warning shots, restraint and leg shots should be the default. The officer has at least one incident of reckless behavior in leaving a loaded firearm in a bathroom, and it’s impossible to know what else may be in his personnel record. My assumption is that the concern was political sentiment would influence the outcome, and whatever they decided to pay resulted in a preferable outcome to taking a chance pursuing that a jury might return an award of $0, or $100,000,000. Autopsy photos/report of a 30-something year old female dead on a table alone could swing people toward an award, rationalizing that the shooting was not criminal but perhaps excessive force was used. Beyond that, it’s just the way things go.

Absolutely not, and spoiler alert: incoming whataboutism! Read at you own risk! I do not think he reviewed each case, and will state definitive that it’s very rare for a President to review the case associate with pardons in any great detail. I think there are political pardons, favors for friends and favors of friends of friends. I think that’s the way it works, just about always, so it seems silly to spend much time debating that point. For that matter, I have not reviewed each and every case, or any and all cases. I review the review on an iPad and try to apply my sense of fairness to what I know. There were crimes committed on 1/6, and to summarize my thoughts (shared somewhere in this forum on 1/6) was that the people who broke the law on that day did not represent my views, and you would not catch me anywhere near that type of event. Joe Biden was elected president, he became my president after the election, and I was ready to move on. However, there is a gaping chasm between some of these knuckleheads that assaulted law enforcement and created chaos and a person trespassing in whatever form the DOJ chose to prosecute. Here’s a summary of why I think fair minded people can reject the notion that every prosecution and very outcome was fair, reasonable and free from political animus: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/28/politics/supreme-court-limits-obstruction-charges-against-january-6-rioters/index.html To be blunt, I think I’m in the mainstream here. Many prosecutions were fine and suitably harsh, those individuals should not have been pardoned by President Trump. Some were overzealous prosecutions politically motivated, and politically motivated resolution seems to be the most likely outcome.

All this because you gushed over Jesus in a Bernie t-shirt, and I suggested He would go a different route? I’m pretty stunned I received any pushback at all…mostly because the subject was about Jesus, wearing a t-shirt. That’s the stuff of your Teen People or Seventeen tabloids, Kay, whimsical but unserious. I’m not against all that by the way, it’s just hard for me to relate to that particular subject and focus on it for any length of time. On commentary of my physical state, no, Kay, I would not think an apology is in order. You said what you think, you think what you said, and you meant what you mean. I cannot control what you say, I can only control how I process it. I think, but certainly don’t know, that maybe somewhere in your emotional development you received positive immediate reinforcement for the type of behavior you occasionally exhibit here. Or, maybe you believe with all your precious precociousness what you said, and bless your heart for that. Either way, I have my own issues, so yours are whatevs. I feel like I’ve extended compliments your way, and acknowledged that some of your posts provided fuel for thought. In case I kept those fat-headed thoughts in my fat head, I think you’re probably pretty intelligent, do an excellent job of outlining your thoughts, sticking to your values and I can respect all of that without agreeing with you. You also used a word the other day that I was unfamiliar with, and I like it. On your manifesto subs 2.0+, I’m sorry you feel that way. You should work through it, emotionally and intellectually, because one fat, smelly carnivore shouldn’t have you writing a thesis on how you are interacted with. It’s unhealthy. What…happened to us, Kay?

I was all for the prosecution of J6 perpetrators, however, there were more than a few stories of prosecutorial overreach. The Dems pressed the advantage they had, looking to make a statement by hunting down everyone they possibly could find. I think most reasonable Americans look at the way liberals generally approach crime (soft on perps, hard on LEOs), say the way low level offenders were tracked down and rejected the approach. Put another way, I think most people that are victims of crime would appreciate the time/effort/commitment the Biden DOJ spent on tracking down and overcharging low level offenders, but realize the hypocrisy in play. I think it mattered in November, and mattered beyond people who identify as MAGA voters. So, pardons were appropriate for some, not for more violent offenders.