leh-nerd skin-erd

Not long ago, polls had a large portion of the population dvr'ing the Hillary Rodham Clinton Coronation and Uranimum Sale Jamboree. So, there's that.

Plenz must now be a Trump supporter due to the facts provided...no?

No sir...before the dangerous and vilified old conservative folks who dare to have opinions and share them, you got Zuck and the gang dealing from the deck in a decidedly non-organic way: https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006 who the hell knows what else they got cooked into the algorithm before the "news" hits the streets? As for Princeton, a relatively recent story surfaced about a faculty member expressing concern about the lack of intellectual diversity when it came to the study of conservatism. If he is to be believed, the entirety of the cited survey is suspect. To boot, the Harvard prof quoted....one must wonder about his street cred given the accusation of systemic bias against certain ethnic groups that has been the subject of litigation. What did he know, and when?

Yeah, I know, you mentioned you were libertarian a while back, but where is the fun in labeling you as something you already indicated you are? I have always struggled with understanding someone whi has the "your liar is worse than mine.". Seems arbitrary to me.

Thank you. Finally, an honest liberal broker speaks here. Your moral compass can handle your own guy lying and spinning, but gets out of whack when someone else's guy lies and spins. Classic squeeze play in American political theater. Solve the border crisis, save some lives, he can dress up as Evita Peron and sing "Dont cry for me Argentina" and I'm ok with it.

There were 19 terrorists on the planes on 9/11. Had there only been 6, perhaps the death toll and ensuing chaos would have been substantially less. Maybe we would not refer to it as 9/11, maybe we would just call it "That second Tuesday in the fall early in the new millenium when only a thousand people were murdered.".

He has to qualify it for his followers with "If it were possible...". ?

Stop...you're arguing a point you seem not to even believe based on earlier posts. The president, elected by the people, has chosen to address the nation on what he deems to be an issue critical to the security of the nation. He wants free, unobstructed, non-challenged airtime to directly address the American people. Rest assured the guardians at the gate will be ready to rip into everything he says or does, and rest assured the dems will be prepared to reject everything said or done about the border in spite of everything THEY have said about the border. What will follow will be series of pre-scripted, focus-group tested word tracks from news media types, border security experts and the whitest person in America Chuck Todd. In fact, the responses are already written.

I find it painful to read through an opinion piece like this. I can imagine this guy sitting in a room somewhere, struggling with all his insecurities, thinking of the successes and failures earned over his lifetime, struggling to figure out all the great problems of the world and what he must write about to truly make a difference in the world. so, he does a little research, talks with a professor from the university of wherever, and comes up with this trash. He might just as well have summed it up with "white people can be good or bad, but it's pretty obvious that while bad white people are not good, good white people are bad too.". The end game, by the way, is embedded in the piece. The bad good white people are hurting their kids by trying to do what's right for them, and they should follow the liberal collective and avoid their own counsel. I feel comfortable having conversations with reasonable folks who disagree with me, I feel things can be learned when you shut your mouth and open your ears. However, after we've had that dialogue, I reserve the right to tell a guy like Nate that he's full of sh/t. He's dangerous, too, but that's a conversation for the family.

What is "Who is NOT a Bills fan" Alex.

It seems very apparent that the best way to protect your players from a Kiko Alonzo head shot is to take him out first. It doesn't even seem like there is much of a choice. Next time, by the time the Bills retaliate it's too late.

It's not as if a federal worker would have been there to catch them. What is even the theoretical connection between the shutdown and these fatal falls? The deaths follow a decision by Trump administration officials to leave the scenic — but sometimes deadly — parks open even as the Interior Department has halted most of its operations. During previous extended shutdowns, the National Park Service barred access to many of its sites across the nation. Oh, I see. If only the parks were closed, they wouldn't have been there at all. This would argue in favor of permanently closing all the national parks because if people go there, they might die. But the real argument, thinly veiled, is that if only the parks were closed (like in past shutdowns), the shutdown would affect a lot of real people who could be shown complaining about their wrecked vacation. If the parks and monuments were closed............what would keep people out ?............................WALLS ?? . A lot of times those massive 700 ft high cliffs are just past the entrance booth to the parking lot, or just out the back door of the gift shop. The guard warns you, hence guard gone people fall 700 feet. and damn that is one sad story.

One of the things that I find irritating about news/entertainment anchors/reporters is when the reporting turns to stories about "shaming" and ageism. I'm not debating it happens, but one of THE most important entries on a resume for jobs of that nature is "look great on camera". So, to be in the position to be a victim of ageism, you had to look substantially better than the average person to begin with. So...while looks matter, it's often only offensive when looks matter later.

I didn't watch this when it originally aired, so I wasn't aware that she was referring to the "tippy top" of income when she spoke of taxation, like the ten millionth dollar and stuff. This is a game changer. We need to get serious with this taxy waxy program shes talking about. She's #4ReelZ.

I took the liberty of borrowing Philly's Secret Lib Decoder Ring/Dog Whistle and applied it to your comments. If I used it correctly you actually meant: "Some good people are all bad"; or "THE DINGOS ATE ME BABY!" (emphasis added).

WALL Street? Exclusionary.

The people impacted by illegal immigration---those on both sides of the border--be it by trafficking, assault, death, etc are simply political capital to many of our elected leaders. The lives lost and families devastated are simply collateral damage. In that regard, nothing has really changed. Of course, the economic impact of 10-30m people here under the radar, the strain on our entitlement programs, medical and education institutions etc is a massive problem as well. Bottom line, and its not just a democrat problem, is that politicians barter with welfare of the country for power and money.

Or at least figure out what your convictions are, and stop acting like the moral majority when you achieve something, and a rock star groupie when you want something.

This kid is a former 2nd round draft choice who plays hard, loves the energy of the team and the fans, and the coaches want him here. He showed us some good stuff, we should all be hoping they can work out a deal to keep him here.

I boldfaced “promoted” because Romney has unwittingly provided the devastating argument against his style of Republicanism. Yes, it is quite true that nearly all Republican presidential candidates—and presidents—have promoted tax reform, lower regulation, getting tough with China, and appointing better judges (and add in moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem), if by “promoted” you mean giving lip service to the ideas. None of them have delivered on these “promoted” ideas (Reagan excepted, of course). The two presidents Bush botched judicial appointments, extended regulation, delivered little in the way of serious tax or spending reform, and did nothing serious with regard to China. I wish Romney had defeated Obama in 2012, but does anyone think this Massachusetts technocrat, who gave us the state-level version of Obamacare in the Bay State, signed up for a regional climate change cap-and-trade scheme, who appointed the egregious Gina McCarthy (Obama’s second EPA administrator) to be his environmental adviser, and appointed state judges who struck the first judicial blows for same-sex marriage, would have governed as a serious conservative had he won? The point is, Trump has proved that “mainstream Republicanism” was a colossal failure. Whereas Bush-Romney Republicans “promoted” good ideas, Trump has delivered on them. I’ll restate once again that I think Trump is, in Wall Street terms, a “high-beta presidency”—high risk, high reward. I wish he was more prudent and measured in the fights he picks and how he conducts himself. He remains his own worst enemy. I fear Trump’s presidency could end disastrously for conservatism. But in the meantime he has mounted the most vigorous challenge to liberalism of anyone since Reagan, under much more difficult political circumstances. We know what we’re going to get from Trump. From Romney, Jeb Bush, or John Kasich, we have no such confidence. Romney should just get to work at being a good senator, and stop the posturing. Or to paraphrase Don Rumsfeld’s most famous remark, we have to go into political battle with the president we have, rather than the president we wish he had. . . This is a good piece and spot on. When taken in context with his "Hate Trump, Love Trump, Hate Trump, Hey Trump will you buy me a milkshake at the local soda shop??", Romney is just a guy who seems to be unsure who he should try and keep happy. Taken in the context of letting Obama off the mat when he was vulnerable, he's just another R loser who panders to the libs. Dems will savage him for his waffling on Trump and everything else, and Trump will make them look like they went easy on him.

interesting you mentioned lizards. There are several species of lizards that are asexual, the mighty Komodo dragon being one. The ability to create offspring via parthenogenesis seems not unlike your ability to create the self-sustaining arguments you espouse here. As for 9/11, I would go with [al-Qaeda] and feel comfortable that while the true answer is quite complex, I would be accurate enough to prevail on jeopardy. Anyway, back to the point, and thanks for making it again this evening. If something is not "worth reading", why invest the time to comment about it? On that note, I'll consider this matter closed. good day, beginnersmind/beginnersmindbot.

You don't have to point anything out to me, I can read. This is kind of my point. Of late, you type one of 4 variations of your basic argument (There is no deep state, there is no deep state, Trump is bad, and Trump is bad) but offer nothing else of value. In that regard, it's actually pretty funny as you laugh off the very notion of a bureaucratic conspiracy while getting all emotionally liquored up on the Trump/Russia conspiracy fomenting in your brain. Meanwhile, right/wrong/good/bad/or crazy...DR provides articles, research, deep dives in support of his position all while encouraging all to make up their own mind. Again, he might be crazy...why do you care? At this point, it seems to me you spend most of your time sniffing around every post like a desperate Puget Sound Deb looking to land a naval aviator.

It's getting creepy, you following behind him with those baby eyes in the internet version of a VW microbus yelling for him to pay attention to you.

Hmm, you sound like that TV psychologist...what's his name.. Oh yeah. Dr. Swill.

Not fair---I would have said it had I known it was going to happen. Agree with all else, and well worth the ejection.