Goodheart
Goodheart's JournalRespect to Norman Lear... gone at 101... he was a society changer
I should know. I'm old enough to have witnessed Archie and Meathead and Maude and George and Weezy.
Now while I never saw anything redeeming about Archie Bunker, and I thought Edith was terribly written albeit well acted, I absolutely adored Maude.
So, Norman, I would love you for Maude alone, but you gave us so much more than that!
Just For Laughs - Gags
With my new TV purchase came something called "Samsung TV", which is a pretty good service of many free channels, including one named Just For Laughs - Gags.
I mean, what in the world? A lot of these gags are pretty clever, and most of them rely on shocking and startling some innocent passerby. It looks like all of these were filmed in Ontario or Quebec.
So, I'm left wondering... are Canadian laws that much more liberal than ours in the USA? I assume that here in the USA the producers and actors would get sued CONSTANTLY for startling and downright terrifying some people, even when they don't get physically hurt.
A sample:
[link:
So, a MAGA acquaintance of mine says that on the first day of trump's trial
the judge threw out 80% of the case against him?
What did I miss?
The Medicare prescription drug donut hole: anybody have any history on it?
Apparently my insurance provider has already covered $4000 of my year to date drug costs, so now I'll have to pay 25% of the drug manufacturers' retail prices for the rest of the year, until I spend $2000 or so on my own, at which time I'll reach the "catastrophic" level where I'll only have to pay 5%. This, by the way, is not the insurance company's rulebook, but Medicare law.
Yes, it's a bit confusing. And it's so bizarre that I'm left to wonder: WHAT THE FUCK?
What's the history behind this magic formula that I'm sure hits tens of thousands of seniors every year with a WHAT THE FUCK moment? What brilliant congressmen sat down and decided "hey, we'll insist that Medicare cover $4000 but after that we'll cover 75% but then after another $2000 we'll cover 95% ?" Were they just showing off at how arcane they could get?
I honestly feel that this is a sad day for America
Necessary, to be sure, though. And I'm more than grateful that a monster is being brought to justice.
But this is not how America's supposed to be. I blame any and all trump voters for this shit show.
Who ratted on Sidney Powell, and will she get the stiffest punishments?
I mean... my understanding is that she actually talked the election commissioner in Coffee County into allowing her access into their voting machines to corrupt the software and change votes.
I mean... WHAT THE FUCK. She was so sure that the election was stolen that she had to cheat the system herself?
I'm thinking 20 years behind bars would be appropriate.
I believe that trump is watching the live feed and is SEETHING
All these African American officials and clerks and officers have the NERVE to indict him! Don't they know their true place? This is not his vision of America.
And I'm as happy as I can be.
"I'm being indicted for you" is so Jesus-like
I understand the appeal among his sinning followers. "I would feel uneasy about my greed and racism but I've got a big boss man up there willing to die for those thoughts. We can achieve paradise despite our disgusting natures by exalting him. Accepting him is our salvation."
Harvard University is a corporation.
As a collection of people, entitled to First Amendment protections of speech and to the power of religious discrimination, according to the Citizens United and Hobby Lobby decisions.
So why is it that Harvard University was not allowed to admit into its halls people of its own choosing? Do I not as a person have freedom of association? Do I not have the First Amendment right to choose who I will and won't admit into my home? Did not the Citizens United and Hobby Lobby cases affirm/extend those people protections to corporations?
And why didn't Harvard's lawyers argue that angle in front of the Court?
So, the question you should be asking yourself: why did Jack Smith leak the tape?
OK, that's not really MY question. It's a trumpian's, who asked it of me:
"at this point you need to ask why the special counsel leaked the audio of the tape to cnn…. for what reason?
here’s the thing: the audio proves nothing. It is the sound of President Trump talking about presidential papers that are claimed by the DOJ to be “classified” or “secret.”
despite your most heartfelt wishes the audio will NEVER be used at trial – if there is even a trial – which is highly unlikely, because it cannot be admitted into evidence.
That’s why Jack Smith gave it to them. The audio is useless, except for the value in promoting the lawfare narrative
Why? Because the documents that are claimed to be heard in the audio are nowhere to be found. That’s right, the DOJ and FBI never found any “classified” or “super-secret” documents as described in the audio. As a result, the audio represents nothing, because without the documents the audio is inadmissible.
You cannot submit evidence in court of a person talking about documents without the documents the audio is supposedly talking about.
Can you see the issue now? As a result, the audio is nothing more than President Trump talking about something the prosecution cannot identify or prove. It’s inadmissible, hence no value, hence the leak"
I thanked him for the comedy.
