leh-nerd skin-erd

Which is one reason for nominating an individual intent on modernizing the military with speed and efficiency. We need to move past unqualified political appointees made by old geezer presidents like Biden who think their adversary is Mikhail Gorbachev.

I would assume it would be asked every time, if it’s important of course, but that it would matter what anyone thinks? You commented that it was a tall order to modernize the military, a military presumably run by his predecessors. Did something change in the 5 minutes since you first posted that thought?

“Tis better to have not tried and never failed, then to embark on a journey that may lead to greatness.”. -Tibs, 2025

Follow the money?

Imagine one of the most influential and experienced politicians over the past 5 decades removing, retaining, recklessly, intentionally, and carelessly handling classified/top secret documents over, and over, and over, and over….and his true believers seemingly suggesting said politician is the real hero of the tale. This is yet another reason your team got skunked in November, Daz. It’s preposterous.

Interesting. I did a quick read on it, certainly seems to have the potential to change travel as we know it. Remember me when you hit big!

Accidents aside—-Sounds like a net positive for the climate change crowd? You likey?

If we’ve learned anything, it’s that blind faith in the goodness and decency of a prosecutor is a bad idea. The best we can ever hope for is a full accounting of the facts, full transparency in prosecution and full disclosure of exculpatory evidence to the defense and the American people. Typically, that would come at trial, but even then, the outcome is often reliant on special deals cut with other offenders in exchange for testimony against targeted individuals. When you factor in political ramifications and the balance of power in the most powerful nation in the world, it becomes even more precarious to see one side as the white knight coming only from a place of purity and decency. Finally, when factoring in the obvious and overwhelming home field advantage of the prosecution here, it’s easy to see why Americans voted to end this absurd spectacle.

If so, let’s pray she has a 1970 GTO nearby and qualifies for the Classic American Muscle Car/Forgetful Yet Kindly and Well Intentioned Classified Documents Slippage exemption. Then, healing can commence.

Because in a shady world where no one can be trusted, the most obvious reply is “You first.”

What you trust is irrelevant to anyone beyond you, but you’re correct— if accountability is simply a talking point nothing changes.

You're developing a lesson plan before addressing accountability.

Welcome to America.

This disaster occurred in California, that's why California and its leadership are under the microscope. There are no answers to be found by simply shouting 'climate change!' without addressing issues of accountability. Off the top of my head----decisions made regarding budget/staffing/equipment, predictive modeling as it relates to severity of loss in high/medium/low risk areas, deployment of resources and plans to fight disasters of this type, allocation of resources generally, review of emergency preparedness and availability of resources in the event first tier response proves inadequate. Additionally, building codes, requirements for retrofitting existing structures, educating the public as to risks, and land management should be reviewed. Perhaps, when viewed objectively and independently, the world will find everything possible was done by the dem leadership to prepare for and respond to these fires, and it was plain old bad luck that it happened on their watch. It simply seems to me you're quite willing to state "Ah, geez it happens everywhere!" because it's your guys on the hot seat this time. I do agree that accountability standards should apply in red states as well.

Our system of governance--and the Constitution itself--lays out the framework on how we come together even when we disagree. This type of dispute is precisely why it was designed this way. While you apparently would support mandatory confiscation from the undesirables as you see them, and perhaps the occasional execution of certain irredeemables, the founding fathers and those who came after recognized that for what it is--simple tyranny. You've taken an almost unbelievable position here---attempting to normalize a murderous animal's state of mind, suggesting the process of adjudication somehow equates to the horrors of nazism. Sadly, it's only 'almost' unbelievable because people have lost their minds.

I get it—you don’t like the Constitution when it doesn’t match your agenda. You’re not alone.

Of course it happens—Google “Russian collusion”, “Trump Impeachment” and “Hanging Chads”. I’ll expect a report on my desk first thing Monday morning. I could have sworn just a short time ago the narrative was the Prez had no control over such things.

That’s politics, Roundy—the libs just cast votes over the fear of the existential threat to democracy, life as we know it and how unfair it is to have to pay back loans. Fear not.

There’s a lot packed in here, but you hit the nail on the head: the local, city and state government is tasked with enacting laws and regulation to best serve and protect members of the community. In many cases, these people were elected by the people they represent. The question of competence v incompetence is a fair one to ask. It is exceedingly painful to have the debate while people are being impacted in such a horrific way, but if not now, when?

It’s sort of amazing how the average citizen can get caught up in this sort of thing and find they were on the wrong side of an issue later on. Imo,Nita about Fb and censorship on the one hand, only to find out later that the government was squeezing them to bend them to their will. I have a friend who posted she’s leaving Fb because of comments made by MZ. She’s most definitely liberal-minded, but a very nice, likable person with a great family. I wonder what her response might be to MZ’s statement here—about government pressure and politically motivated pressure from an array of agencies to force them to capitulate to their demands. My guess is she would defer to that sort of governmental overreach and censorship was necessary to protect individuals given her work in the public sector.

I already told you who fits the description. It’s your right to worship that lunatic—there were people who felt the same about Charles Manson, Ted Kaczynski and a long list of losers. Just don’t be disappointed when people point it out. According to your link, the question revolves around the constitutionality of certain provisions of the ACA. This is how disputes are resolved, not by a bunch of fan boys cheering the murder of a guy in the most cowardly way possible.

You should continue to assess voter choice utilizing the type of rudimentary analysis. It worked very well the second time he was elected.

The murderer is an insane, unhinged, crazy loser who despite significant economic advantages in life chose to stalk and murder an individual he never met, spoke with, or engaged with on any level. He is also apparently dumb as a stump, leaving clues to his identity that lead to his capture after just a few days in a country as massive as ours is. Finally, the reports go he was shaking like a leaf when identified, making him the perfect heroic figure for individuals inclined to worship such people. “Pissed” isn’t part of the equation.

And where our nations top intelligence officers apparently don’t know the difference between personal data on a laptop and Russian disinformation. I think it all goes in the file marked ”huddled masses” .

In a thread about private money and the inauguration. I’m going to allow it, though out of an abundance of caution I’m going to add B’s moniker to my Abundance of Caution list. Word to the wise—-I keep it right next to my list of snitches!