leh-nerd skin-erd

Wha wha wha what? You're a self described liberal who just used just one color to draw a picture of who these kids are likely to be in the future*. You have a whole box of crayons and your going with one? I'm always amazed when a liberal lumps people together like that. So closed-minded! *magenta. You used magenta, the color of intolerance!

I don't like this ad. I've known many WW2 vets, including my father, and while I get what Barbasol is trying to do, I find it pretty tacky. Between the ping simulating the helmet, and the guy casually tossing a potato masher back toward the enemy like it's a newspaper that flew into a fox hole, its cheesey.

Look, as long as you didn't tell him "It's on like Donkey Kong!" I think you're fine. On the other hand is there a more liberal street than Massachusets?

Even the most altruistic among of us has a price point, I just wanted to get a gauge on yours. The open borders crowd is one extreme, I suppose on the right would be the close it all down crowd. The problem is that those of us in the middle carry the weight of both extremes. Personally, I'd be willing to pay a percentage of my income to help solve the problem, over and above the overly burdensome rate that I pay. The only caveat would be that there was a reasonable likelihood that the problem would be solved. I say that because in my world, my priorities are 1. My family 2. Everyone else (with a whole subset of folks in that group). Obviously, that is not going to happen, and the establishment types are perfectly winning to keep the status quo. The cool part for them is they already collect the tribute on a state, local and federal level. The way I see it, this is as good a line in the sand as any.

I was wondering about contrbutions in addition to the alternatives. Reading your earlier post, you implied the shutdown impacts you personally, but indicated "fortunately". Was that a typo, or is it a good time to be furloughed?

You are not alone in this suggestion. We Would you be willing to contribute more of your income/savings/retirment to solve the problem in a manner that is consistent with your values? And with that in mind, would you contribute a higher percentage knowing it was voluntary and others could opt out? Lets say a plan was put forth whereby like minded people could arbitrarily contribute an extra 10%, and forgo the tax deferred element on 401k or IRA contributions. Just wondering.

One of my main concerns is shooting myself in the thigh while cleaning or handling the damn thing. "Carbine" sounds like I'm unlikely to survive when I accidentally push the junk mail into the teapot into the carbine which falls on the floor and the ensuing gun fire separates my right leg from my body. I'm not an anti-gun guy, but was always in the not-for-me camp. I do own a machete though, and have yet to put my eye out. I'm getting there.

I have come to realize it's an "us v. them" world. Doesn't mean it's a fight for survival, or that revolutionaries will be kicking in my front door...but the folks looking to push this ridiculous issue offer nothing of value to me. I am considering a handgun purchase for the first time in my life. This kid with the dopey kid grin staring at this experienced, calculating activist showed restraint not all that common at his age. For that, death threats. The coverage is disgraceful.

Every time I see an official they are chatting up the players, big smiles. It's like match.com.

That's fair, but to think there was not one official in the area to see a pass int AND helmet to helmet hit with under 2 minutes left in the NFC championship defies logic. When you factor in that the game was literally on the line it becomes even more unbelievable. Add that to different games being officiated in different ways, you end up with what you get, a product most people don't trust to get it right.

When someone is out on the ledge, threatening to jump, there always seems to be manipulative, petty and heartless cretin on the ground encouraging them to jump. Often, media members fill the role of the cretin. How these people survive professionally screwing up stories is beyond me.

I don't know about that. It's possible that somewhere in the dark soul of the SC there is a voice of reason. "Wait, we have people losing their ;:/-ing minds over $89 worth of Russians facebook ads and discredited porn star attornies...now they want to drag me into this bogus story? What would this do to the country?". Also, it would work well with DRs speculation that Mueller is working with DOJ and Trump. Same scenario, except "we gotta tamp this &$@# down hard, today."

I think I can understand the buzzzzzzzfeed guy digging his heels in. He has no integrity left so you go with the "I worked on a loading dock when I was a punk kid..." and "I use the same standards now as I did covering city hall". He's passionately outlining his entire reason for being, justifying his worth after running a bs story. He had to be absolutely stunned when the SC releases a statement calling his report garbage. How often does that happen? But at the dough boy behind the CNN mic is flat out pathetic and yet again reveals how incredibly soft some of these journalists can be in a face to face setting. He's pretending to be Walter Conkrite but he's behaving like he's the red carpet flunky on Entertainment Tonight. How about asking him how the sources was vetted, how about asking the buzzzzfeed reporter who the source is, or what his/her role in the govt is? What about some other questions about leaks previously reported on that turned out to be true? I'd respect just about anything other than this glorified conversation between a Therapist and his patient in crisis.

Don't apologize, it makes you appear weak. We learn from communicating with each other. When you clock back in, reconsider.

I'll play on this one. I don't get it. Enlighten me.

The premise is that Buzzfeed has used sources revealed to be providing inaccurate information, and that "makes sense". When people tell you what they think, believe them. For anti-Trumpers, this is the MO. In fact, read a report that Chuck Todd was interviewing the Buzzfeed editor. Instead of manning up and getting to the point, his set up was "I've known you for 20 years and know you didn't want this. Here, "this"=spreading a false narrative about physical evidence existing in the form of texts, emails and witnesses willing to testify about a sitting prez directing someone to lie to congress. Todd ran with this story like a good little propagandist and spent about 4 minutes on how evidence of this nature will surely be the end of Trump. So, Todd looks like a dimwit based on his good buddies major f-up and wants to find out his feelings?

I noticed NBC now uses the phrase "not independently verified by NBC news..." when they want to get something out there quickly, aren't necessarily interested in finding out whether the report is accurate or not, and want plausible deniability later on. By extension, when they don't include that language, but are using anonymous sourcing I can only assume they are guaranteeing the veracity of the reporting. The fact that they have reported on many of the stories listed without the caveat leads to the conclusion that they intersperse real news "baby falls in well" with inaccurate, misleading and erroneous reporting.

Next time he should just go with "anomaly". 100% of those folks understandably upset over "Black Swan" won't understand that either, and it'll be funny as #@!# watching their frustration as they try to Google "nomuhlee".

I think Pelosi is in Brussels.

That was 1975ish. I'll need a few more to compensate for the arthritic hip. But bless you.

Yes, I know. First time I've replied and it will be the last. However, every now and again I like to go through the excersize of reading a bit to keep myself sharp. Or as sharp as I am going to be.

I love Canada, it's a beautiful country and by and large the people I have met are awesome. The challenge often comes from within, when citizens who pride themselves as globalists with opinions galore are revealed as hypocrites with the burning soul of an ordinary, every day, run of the mill candadian nationalist. This article from the NYTimes points to the conundrum. Your leader (an acknowledged assaulter of at least one woman) lamented the US policy on illegal immigration not all that long ago. Why has Canada become so hostile to the Hatian people (among others) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/13/world/canada/quebec-immigrants-haitians.html "Earlier this summer, the government also sent Emmanuel Dubourg, a Liberal Haitian-Canadian member of Parliament from Montreal, to Miami’s “Little Haiti” to spread the word that getting asylum in Canada was difficult. “People come here and realize that this is not the Promised Land and that they could be deported back to Haiti,” he said in an interview." A Canadian politician flew to our open and accepting country to threaten refugees off the journey to the land of frozen milk and honey??? You really need protection from your baser instincts. #knowcanada/nocanada

Sensible approach in 1974. Sensible approach if this issue hasn't been booted down the road with promises of "Let's do my thing and catch up later!"for decades. Sensible approach if all players were honest brokers. Besides, the duly elected President should fight like hell to implement the programs he promised to implement. And, as a business owner, it would be nice now and again if there was a brief uptick in outrage from the public sector when onerous regulation and govt overreach directly impacted employees/employers of the private sector. Hell, the potential for financial ruin increased exponentially just due to the nys family leave act. time to resolve this one way or another. I'm sorry for people who are struggling, but that is hardly limited to federal employees on furlough with guaranteed income replacement when this is resolved. This is a republican issue as well, and imo blood is on their hands as well. Where the :::: was John McCain, the great maverick, cutting deals or compromises on this for 4 decades? You needed a Trump to flush these people out.

These basically amount to 6 op-eds and the write up for the back page of the Columbia law school year book. One of the central themes of the op-eds is they are dishonest. There is a legitimate concern about the socioeconomic impact of illegal immigration and it's something that has been discussed for decades. It's fundamentally dishonest to suggest there is an assault on immigration when there simply is not. You have to take yourself seriously to be taken serious here. I agree with you that the Trump border plan and the negotiations with the House is not the only solution to the crisis. Another president, let's call her Hillary, well she might have had a different plan. But, she overslept on Election Day and went away.

Damn, I was just spitballing when I said that. Come to think of it though, I yelled at that Reubenesque McCain girl on the View this morning, told my wife I thought "Beto" might be a fun name for a child of either gender, and spent this evening watching old Streisand films. JC did I catch some liberal somewhere??