mojo_bones

So my starting QB goes out in the first quarter and will be out at least 6 weeks. Well, at least I have a solid backup- what? He got injured and is out for the season? Yeah, that sounds about right.

7 hours ago, Simon said:

Certainly.  All part of a fairly well-orchestrated effort to cast doubt on certain candidates and sow confusion and chaos within the electorate (which they could then capitalize upon).

It was grander in scale than what the US did, but handled in an eerily similar fashion.

Did the US have inside help? I really don't know. Russia was given internal polling from the Trump campaign to assist in knowing where to utilize the manipulated information they hacked from the DNC. It allowed them to do some seriously surgical micro-targeting in just the right states to the right demographic groups.

Saturday is my Anniversary so I am out for that. Sundays usually work for me

any room for a former champ of the league?

The Boys- kind of a Watchmen meets Justice League with a heavy dose of corporate conspiracy thrown in. I enjoyed it and really hope we get a second season.

This is exactly the reason I dislike T2. Well that and the fact in T1 Reese explains EXACTLY WHY NO ONE ELSE CAN EVER TIME TRAVEL AGAIN!! But the movie did too well so they had to make it a franchise.

47 ronin.

semi WWE related- How did Cody Rhodes go from midcard guy with a not so great Stardust gimmick to starting a company in less than 3 years? Did anyone see that coming?

6 hours ago, Toxxus said:

 

Not sure our current implementation of voting is going to work out.  We're 23 trillion in debt and have north of 100 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities and our leaders are showing no signs of slowing down their spending.

 

Voting shouldn't be constrained by race or gender (nothing should, really), but I wouldn't mind an IQ test or some other metric required to be passed in order to vote.

 

If I want to fish - I need a license.

If I want a concealed handgun license I have to pass a background check; a written test; and prove I can hit a target while rapid-firing at the gun range.

If I want to drive a car I have to pass an eye-test, a written test and a driving practical.

 

If I want to vote I just have to make it to 18 years old and suddenly I have the power to pick which officials will determine the law of the land and who will, among other things, decide where our young men and women are sent to kill and die.

That really should require a certain level of testable knowledge and decision making.

You listed things that are choices we make. Being born in this country and thus being subject to it's laws in not a choice one makes.  As we were founded on the idea of no taxation without representation (and no that is not limited to federal income tax as the idea of taxation) the right to vote should only be revoked in only the most extreme circumstances. Sadly this country continues to try and strip away and discourage voting rather than trying to broaden the voting population. Even when citizens vote to allow more citizens to vote, those in power find new ways to thwart the will of the people.

How about we end the series as it began- with a Baratheon sitting on the thrown. We now have a Baratheon heir thanks to Danny.

Tonight will be the final episode for True Detective season 3. Season 1 was amazing and season 2 was a disappointment to put it mildly. For me season 3 has been great. Great acting, storytelling, and writing on this show. Each season is a stand alone story so you do not need to watch any of the previous seasons before watching season 3.

9 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Again, this isn't about Trump. That's a facetious argument. It's whataboutism.

 

Go back and read my posts without reading into them as if I'm the media or representing the media. There is NOTHING that makes Warren in the right in this. And what she has done is far from harmless. The tribes have a very legitimate beef with her, as pointed out in an earlier article which you apparently either didn't read or disregarded.

 

You need to quit beating the "Trump is worse" drum in defense of Warren. Nobody's picking on Warren. She put herself into this situation.

I apologize if you are reading my posts as saying you personally are part of the media or somehow representing them. The point remains. This was a complete non issue for previous candidates. What you see as "whataboutism" I see as a reasonable question.  From the perspective of a presidential nomination, Warren's "lie" is pointed to as why she could never win a general election against Trump. So it is perfectly reasonable to make a comparison between the two potential candidates (Trump v Warren). And when comparing the two handling their own personal stories how do they compare?  One candidate who has again apologized and has a plausible reason or why it happened and the other who has not apologized, continued to tell the same story well after even the public knew it was false and has no possible explanation for the lies. If I were to talk about Bush or Romney or Clinton in caparison to Warren then the argument for whataboutism would be applicable. But here it is literally the comparison we will possibly be asked to make in the near future.

2 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

One thing to consider in this: Even if she believed she was part Native American sincerely, as a law professor she should have damned well been aware that checking off her race on a government form is attesting that one is a member of a tribe. Harvard Law represented her in its reports to the government as a Native American for six years running. She claims that she didn't know about this, but when she checked the box to apply as a law professor (not a student entering college, but as someone already versed in the law), she should have known. The only explanations for this is that she was acting in ignorance (unlikely, she seems to be highly capable), or to take advantage of her heritage without meeting the legal requirements.

Again, there is absolutely no way Trump didn't make up his family history intentionally. So even if Warren flat out lied about this*  why is it that only Warren's "lie" on this subject is ever talked about anywhere?  If it is not a double standard, than what is it?  It is almost impossible to find a recent article about Senator Warren that does not mention this subject. Only one newspaper did a full article on Trump's story about a small loan from his father. It was discussed for maybe a week and it was never a subject anyone raised with Trump directly. If it is a big deal for one why not for the other? If is something that needs to be scrutinized to see if she is "fit for the office" how is it that it was never an important matter for Trump for the exact same office?  To put it simply- even if she lied why is now a bigger deal then it was just a few years ago?  Why would this one lie be a deal breaker when compared to the other politicians?

* There are plausible explanations for her actions.Many do not like them but they are there. Her story is not uncommon in America.

7 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

If I ever rob the local gas station, I'll use the "other people got away with it" excuse and see how it works.

 

I really don't get your point here. It is not illegal to believe a story.  I was not trying to commit a crime by believing I was 1/4 German. My mother was not trying to commit a crime when she told me I was 1/4 German. It is what she was told so it is what she told her kids. To compare this to a crime seems a bit excessive.

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

The left calls people who wear the wrong hat racist without knowing anything else about them.  But, since you love making this comparison:  What would happen to a conservative who claimed Native American heritage remarking on the family's "high cheekbones", to only find out they had little to no said heritage.  If you don't think they would be called racist, by every liberal in the news circuit, then fooling yourself is one's choice I suppose.  I've seen conservatives called racist over the last decade for much much less.

 

 

Saying that "the liberals in the news would do it" or "the left does it" is not a very good defense. Two wrongs and all that. We are a country of mutts. We are a country that has romanticized different backgrounds at different times and in different regions resulting in family histories claiming those backgrounds. Those myths are passed down from generation to generation and taken as fact. There is a significant populace in this country who believe they are something they are not. The idea that not knowing your history or being misled about your history is worse than purposely making up your history is what I am talking about. Nothing more, nothing less.

1 minute ago, Badger said:

 

Not lying about your ethnic heritage on a job resume is a pretty damn low standard.   Unless your argument is Trump made her do it, this is pointless.     

Again until I was in my late 20s I believed I was 1/4 German. My entire family believed we were 1/4 German. If you had asked me in a job interview I would have said I was part German. Is that a lie? This is EXACTLY what happened with Senator Warren. Her family members have said that was the same story they were all told as well. So she believed she was part native American when she listed it as such. From all evidence this was what she believed at the time and was not an intentional lie. Contrast this with Trump claiming his dad gave him a small loan to get started and nothing more. This is an intentional lie used to hide his true family history. How on earth can you say Warren's situation is more damaging to her credibility that Trump's? That is the point.

59 minutes ago, Ranxerox said:

Still, as a nation we a very sanguine about the fact that the men that run for the highest office in the nation have dishonorable actions on their records.  Yet

for some reason, we seem unwilling to allow female candidates the same human moral frailty. 

This.

Just now, archer said:

 

I'm not arguing that there's not a double standard coming from the people who ignore what Trump says and does. Trump is a lying idiot and the people who blindly defend him on everything are just as guilty as he is.

 

I'm saying that what Warren did was wrong.

 

Out of curiosity, did you tell people that you were 1/4th German in order to gain an advantage in some situation for your personal benefit? Or have you done it only in casual conversation?

 

I don't personally think it's a "mighty high" standard to avoid bringing up your "only known from family hearsay" racial heritage in a job interview.

 

YMMV

Again, for most people if you grew up being told your entire life you were part whatever, why would you think you were not part whatever? To be clear if I went to an interview in my 20s where I thought being 1/4 German would have helped get the job, I would have told them I was 1/4 German and I would have firmly believed I was telling the the honest truth. If you think Senator Warren is the only one to do this, I suggest you might want to look through other resumes especially for people from the Midwest as well as  Oklahoma.  There is a reason that 23 and me and Ancestory.com are so popular. Look at their commercials. They are filled with people saying "I thought I was German, but it turns out I'm Dutch!" or "Who knew my Great Grandfather was from Peru!" And this has not just been made to be as bad as intentionally lying about your past but actually worse.  Trump's outright intentional lies about his personal history are ignored so that he can attack Warren on this issue and people on both the left and the right go right along with it. As I said I am simply baffled.

But it seems they never held Trump accountable. He has told these stories often and it was never made into media outrage story.  So again why is it that Warren is held to anincredibly high standard on this?

2 hours ago, archer said:

 

We don't have proof that she gained any advantage.

 

We do know that she intentionally used it in a job interview when it could have given her an advantage. The reason you include stuff during job interviews is to try to display every feature you have in order to get the job.

 

Is it the intentional attempt which makes a person guilty of something? Or do you have to prove that they succeeded before they're guilty of something? If you're talking about bank robbery or murder, just making the attempt makes you guilty rather than innocent.

 

I'd argue that if you are trying to pass off family lore as facts during a job interview that you are guilty of not telling the truth.

 

During WWII, my grandfather was wounded three times during the fight across Europe and had three Purple Hearts to prove it. He told us that the first Purple Heart was on D-Day. He also told us that at one point his squad was trapped behind enemy lines.

 

I don't tell people that my grandfather "acted heroically" on D-Day because I don't know for sure that he fought on D-Day or that he acted heroically there if he did. He admitted that while he wandered around lost behind enemy lines that he ran and hid with his squad and eventually jumped an enemy supply train and rode it back toward the front so I don't tell people that he "fought" behind enemy lines because he never mentioned any fighting there.

 

And I wouldn't mention any of it in a job interview because I don't think it is particularly ethical to trade on my ancestors in order to get an advantage in landing a job. I also wouldn't tell them that he was at various times a hobo and a moonshine runner before the war if I were interviewing for a job at a homeless shelter or a brewery.

 

I've got another ancestor, direct lineage, who fought in the Revolutionary War and got a small government pension for his service during that war. And I wouldn't use that fact in a job interview either even though my aunt found his pension paperwork and confirmed that the story was true.

 

That's a mighty high standard that I think most people would not live up to. Again I told people all the time that I was 1/4 German. Turns out my mother and grandmother were wrong. But, why would I have doubted them? What reason did I have to think it wasn't true? Until quite recently most people had no easy way of verifying these stories IF (big if) they had some reason to doubt what they had been told by their elders since a very early age.  And all of the still misses the point. Trump's story was verifiable and clearly a lie. A lie that he KNEW was a lie. It's not like his dad told him the money fairy gave him millions of dollars throughout his life. He used that story throughout his life and into his political career to gain advantages. He told that story again and again not only after he knew it was false (because he always knew) but after the proof was in the public. And yet...barely a grumble. When he started running for president telling this story no one batted an eyelash. It was not something people thought of as proof he couldn't be President.  When Trump calls Senator Warren Pocahontas people laugh or say it's racist. I NEVER hear anyone say how can a man who has lied about his family story try to chastise someone else for simply not knowing theirs.  Again the "left leaning media" does not do that. Nor do I ever see it posted anywhere. The double standard on this is staggering.

The entire Warren thing just baffles me. So we have no proof that she gained any advantage. We have several family members who said they all were told the same thing so she didn't just make it up. She is far from the only person to ever believe they had a different heritage then whey actually do. ( I was 1/4 German until I was around 30 then suddenly I wasn't!). And this is a huge deal. OTOH We have Trump who claimed his dad gave him a small loan to start him off and he made billions all on his own. There is hard proof that none of that is true and the proof has been out there for a long time. Even with the proof out there he continues to say it. He gained a huge advantage both financially and politically from this lie. And again he received this money so he was fully aware all along that none of it was true.  How is it that Warren is demonized for this by the press? Seriously the Trump story is never talked about but every time you so much as mention Warren someone has to talk about her "heritage" as proof she can't be President.

Rapist is a pretty strong word that you might not want to throw around casually.

I think it is important to remind ourselves what Trump himself as well as his surrogates were saying when this all started. In a news conference he stated that he had not talked to anyone from Russia in years. He also said that no one in his campaign had any contacts with Russia. And now we are here: 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html

Just to be clear, the bill DID have funding for border security. As have previous bills agreed to by both parties. The sticking point is NOT border security but is said to be the wall. I suspect that isn't it either. I think Trump and the senate Republicans know an open government speeds up and puts the focus back on his campaign's dealings with Russia and Trump's financial issues. Anything to delay and obstruct that area of questioning is where we stand now. Again, Trump and the Republicans had 2 years to bring this up and didn't. It is not about the wall.

11 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Pelosi and Schumer have demanded, and received equal time to respond.

 

Some git on MSNBC is saying the networks should've refused to give Trump the air time.  Idiot doesn't have a clue.  That'd be totally unacceptable.  Time for the response is the correct tactic.

 

I suggest you look back to 2014 and Obama's DACA speech. The networks said it was too political so did not air it. I remember all of the outrage for that....oh wait no I don't. I remember crickets. These are the things that show the idea that the media has a left leaning bias just so laughable.