patrick.net

The quality has been just as bad for decades.

I would love them to try.

The most outrageous part of the whole hearing was. The Democrats knew there was no crime commited.
Trump was not charged with a crime, there was no criminal investigation, and the AG works at his pleasure.
The Mueller Report was the accumulation of Bluffs and inuendoes that fell flat.
So the Commitie wanted Lewandowski to Say he did not deliver the note because he didn't think it was right, for any reason. And by him admitting that, he would be admitting guilt, Guilt to a crime that did not exist mind you.

There's a million reasons he didn't deliver the message. What if Sessions got wind of the firing and called up Trump and chummed him into believing not to worry the special council is just a formality, and it's best to leave Sessions than to remove him and stir up a bigger mess.Trump could have contacted him and told him not do it for many reasons. And Lewandowski could have not wanted to deliver that message to Sessions out of not wanting to get in the middle of their spat. Not in the middle of a legality of it, but the conflict between the two.

Humpty Dumpty and all the King's men couldn't get Lewandowski to say... "I didn't deliver it because I thought it was wrong."
Even if he did say that, that doesn't invoke an unwritten law. Law is the Law, it does not care if you knew you breaking it or not. Just as Ignorance is no excuse for the Law.
Trump could have fired Sessions, we all know it. If it were a crime to do so, then Trump would have been recommend for prosecution by Mueller.

Trump did put in the order, he did have some one write down the message. He did send some one to deliver it. If there was no intervention by Trump to not deliver it because he got cold feet. Then as far as the deed goes, he instructed someone to fire Jeff. That would be a crime itself if doing so were illegal.
He showed full intent to do so. They want Lewandowski to say he got cold feet because it was wrong.

Unbelievable!

They are stopping manufacturing because no one is buying them. You can get a comparable AR style rifle from a ton of other manufacturers for 1/2 their price now.

HEYYOU says

Booger says

They are stopping manufacturing because no one is buying them. You can get a comparable AR style rifle from a ton of other manufacturers for 1/2 their price now.

But it's not a Colt! ;-)

Colt was never good at it.
When someone says Colt, you think gun, not rifle.
Kind of like when someone says Lemon, you think GM, not an actual lemon

We're still paying for Katrina.

HEYYOU says

"Texas Is Drowning Under One of the Wettest Storms in US History"

Houston is--what else would anyone expect?

P N Dr Lo R says

Houston is--what else would anyone expect?

Winnie, Beaumont, and redneck-land north of Houston are drowning.

Had not heard of the 48 Hour Trump Rule:

Any News report by the MSM concerning Donald Trump should be considered false on its face and ignored for at least 48 hours unless said report contains:
Actual video or audio confirming said report
OR
At least two on the record sources willing to confirm it
Work from this rule and you’ll be fine. Of course we’ve reached the point where most of the people reading this rule likely have already applied it.

http://datechguyblog.com/2018/01/18/i-propose-the-48-hour-trump-msm-news-rule/

Maybe the "whistleblower" complaint should be sent to congress, rather than spin and bull shit? Perhaps there is some reason Trump doesn't want congress to see the complaint? That's why they call it whistle blowing. If its a bogus claim so be it. Maybe just follow the law, which requires that the complaint shall be sent to congress ( Intelligence committees) after review by the IG ( a Trump appointee), who has said it was credible and urgent. That is fact. Is it too much to expect the law be followed? Or is Trump above the law? His lawyers now claim that not only can he not be indicted he cant even be investigated. In other words he is currently above the law. And how in the hell have Trump and others in the administration seen this complaint? That is another deviation of the law and puts this and all whistle blowers at future risk and makes a mockery of the statute. But lets ignore the facts and talk about Biden and the 48 hour rule.

Didn't the Mueller Report extend the 48 hours to two years?

rdm says

Maybe the "whistleblower" complaint should be sent to congress, rather than spin and bull shit? Perhaps there is some reason Trump doesn't want congress to see the complaint? That's why they call it whistle blowing. If its a bogus claim so be it. Maybe just follow the law, which requires that the complaint shall be sent to congress ( Intelligence committees) after review by the IG ( a Trump appointee), who has said it was credible and urgent. That is fact. Is it too much to expect the law be followed? Or is Trump above the law? His lawyers now claim that not only can he not be indicted he cant even be investigated. In other words he is currently above the law. And how in the hell have Trump and others in the administration seen this complaint? That is another deviation of the law and puts this and all whistle blowers at future risk and makes a mockery of the statute. But lets ignore the facts and talk about Biden and the 48 hour rule.

This is so great. It's another Trump set up.

It's how he's going to get the media to finally talk about Hunter Biden's shenanigans.

You might be mad that the President was demanding Ukraine explain why they fired the prosecutor looking into Hunter Biden's malefeasence, but you're not mad the then Vice President of the United States called the Ukrainian Prime Minister and DEMANDED! that they stop investigating his son and fire the Prosecutor.

www.youtube.com/embed/lH_sdTC7Anw

Also, McCabe is going to be indicted. Not only did his attorney put out a list of character witnesses, then a few hours later remove everybody of substance like Comey off of it, but because now Politico is poisoning the well with a piece like this:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/20/the-weak-and-risky-case-against-andrew-mccabe-228147

But speaking of malfeasance that is not theoretical and unproven, is it too much to ask that the Trump administration comply with the whistleblower law as it was written?

This is comical coming from a liberal...
rdm says

Is it too much to expect the law be followed?

rdm says

Perhaps there is some reason Trump doesn't want congress to see the complaint? That's why they call it whistle blowing. If its a bogus claim so be it.

Your last statement said the full truth about how you really feel. You know it's bullshit, but "Hey! Keep up the pressure, the Fuckhead Democrats have got NOTHING!"

The President can say anything he damn well pleases to a foreign leader. "Investigate the last Scumbags, that the Scumbags in our Congress refuses to investigate." Is perfectly acceptable, as Biden's crimes did fall within Ukraine's jurisdiction. Unlike the Steel Dossier that Obama and Clinton had worked up from foreign intelligence to meddle with domestic issues locally.

Surely you see the difference here, and know right from wrong, less you admit you're a blithering Idiot and deserve no serious debate for your senseless comments.

I just wish for once Democrats will admit, the shit they are pulling, they hope it doesn't set precedence and doesn't come around and bite them in the Ass. Because it is, and it will.

Just admit they hate Trump so much they would burn down a house to get rid of a rat. They just hate Trump and don't care about laws, or legality. They know they are wrong and breaking laws, but they hate Trump. So they don't care.

I would respect the first Democrat as an equal that would at least admit that. Rather than selling their Fantasy Bullshit as facts.

rdm says

But speaking of malfeasance that is not theoretical and unproven, is it too much to ask that the Trump administration comply with the whistleblower law as it was written?

Somebody hearing something 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand dealing with a matter that is outside your job description is not being a Whistleblower; it's being a gossip.

It certainly does not trigger the handover of transcripts of conversations with a foreign power by the President, whose Foreign Policy powers are largely unrestricted as the SCOTUS has made clear repeatedly.

CornPoptheOriginalGangster says

rdm says

But speaking of malfeasance that is not theoretical and unproven, is it too much to ask that the Trump administration comply with the whistleblower law as it was written?

Somebody hearing something 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand dealing with a matter that is outside your job description is not being a Whistleblower; it's being a gossip.

It certainly does not trigger the handover of transcripts of conversations with a foreign power by the President, whose Foreign Policy powers are largely unrestricted as the SCOTUS has made clear repeatedly.

This whole affair shows that the deep state is still spying on the President, just like during the campaign.

rdm says

But lets ignore the facts and talk about Biden and the 48 hour rule.

So what impeachable offence has the president committed?

rdm says

But lets ignore the facts and talk about Biden and the 48 hour rule.

So what impeachable offence has the president committed?

rdm says

But lets ignore the facts and talk about Biden and the 48 hour rule.

So what impeachable offence has the president committed?

rdm says

But lets ignore the facts and talk about Biden and the 48 hour rule.

So what impeachable offence has the president committed?

rdm says

But lets ignore the facts and talk about Biden and the 48 hour rule.

So what impeachable offence has the president committed?

rdm says

But lets ignore the facts and talk about Biden and the 48 hour rule.

So what impeachable offence has the president committed?

rdm says

But lets ignore the facts and talk about Biden and the 48 hour rule.

So what impeachable offence has the president committed?

rdm says

But lets ignore the facts and talk about Biden and the 48 hour rule.

So what impeachable offence has the president committed?

rdm says

But lets ignore the facts and talk about Biden and the 48 hour rule.

So what impeachable offence has the president committed?

rdm says

But lets ignore the facts and talk about Biden and the 48 hour rule.

So what impeachable offence has the president committed?

rdm says

But lets ignore the facts and talk about Biden and the 48 hour rule.

So what impeachable offence has the president committed?

rdm says

But lets ignore the facts and talk about Biden and the 48 hour rule.

So what impeachable offence has the president committed?

TDS

You got to have a beer with everyone first to get to know them personally and give them a chance. Except for realtors.

If the articles you posted actually had a valid point they wouldn’t need 5000 words of drivel you’d need to wade through to understand. The truth is generally fairly simple. That’s why people don’t like your giant posts of pointless crap that makes you dumber then before you read it.

It starts out with a 20 year old example where the professor chose to not teach a class due to student protests. I don’t see what this has to do with today when professors are routinely fired for suggesting students lighten up about Halloween costumes.

Then I scanned ahead a little to where the article stated that both the left and right are being censored on college campuses, then I stopped reading when it failed to provide an example of leftist groups being censored.

Please provide an example of a leftist group being significantly censored to the extent that conservative groups are on campus otherwise delete this post.

Political correctness is the biggest scourge of the 21st century.

Everything is fine Jazz, don't worry go back to sleep. We got this!

:
I call bullshit on the idea that Haidt, Jordan Peterson, and countless others are wrong. I've heard about it from kids that go off to colleges and see the weird behavior.

You must not have seen the Yale Halloween incident a few years back. The guys wife is guilty of suggesting that perhaps people lighten up just a little about Halloween costume rules. (cultural appropriation)

www.youtube.com/embed/hiMVx2C5_Wg

:
Or a much more extreme version was the incident at Evergreen with Brett Weinstein

www.youtube.com/embed/2cMYfxOFBBM

Student: "I'm fearful of having a nuanced opinion."

YOU don't care?!
HEY! There I was, naively thinking that the intent of your antisemitic, anti-republican, getting-in-every-topic, contaminating-every-thread, use-repetition-instead-of-substance propaganda trolling is to make this world a better place.
And then - KABOOM! "I don't care!"
WTF?

personal

marcus is light years from alt right. So is Bill Maher, who said that Trump won because of political correctness - and here I tend to agree with them.

He does have a point. Especially because if Duterte had his druthers, he'd kill Bill for aiding and abetting the CIA cocaine pipeline through Arkansas when he was Guv, and using the Arkansas state police as his own personal Murder Inc. Of course, he had quite a history also of pardoning all of the drug dealers who moved the product.

:
Here is the email that the triggered Yale students were reacting to. WHAT THE FUCK ??

Dear Sillimanders:

Nicholas and I have heard from a number of students who were frustrated by the mass email sent to
the student body about appropriate Halloween-wear. I’ve always found Halloween an interesting
embodiment of more general adult worries about young people. As some of you may be aware, I teach
a class on “The Concept of the Problem Child,” and I was speaking with some of my students
yesterday about the ways in which Halloween – traditionally a day of subversion for children and
young people – is also an occasion for adults to exert their control.

When I was young, adults were freaked out by the specter of Halloween candy poisoned by lunatics,
or spiked with razor blades (despite the absence of a single recorded case of such an event). Now,
we’ve grown to fear the sugary candy itself. And this year, we seem afraid that college students are
unable to decide how to dress themselves on Halloween.

I don’t wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other
challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have
proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those
goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as
a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative)
exercise of implied control over college students.

It seems to me that we can have this discussion of costumes on many levels: we can talk about
complex issues of identify, free speech, cultural appropriation, and virtue “signalling.” But I wanted to
share my thoughts with you from a totally different angle, as an educator concerned with the
developmental stages of childhood and young adulthood.

As a former preschool teacher, for example, it is hard for me to give credence to a claim that there is
something objectionably “appropriative” about a blonde-haired child’s wanting to be Mulan for a day.
Pretend play is the foundation of most cognitive tasks, and it seems to me that we want to be in the
business of encouraging the exercise of imagination, not constraining it. I suppose we could agree that
there is a difference between fantasizing about an individual character vs. appropriating a culture,
wholesale, the latter of which could be seen as (tacky)(offensive)(jejeune)(hurtful), take your pick. But,
then, I wonder what is the statute of limitations on dreaming of dressing as Tiana the Frog Princess if
you aren’t a black girl from New Orleans? Is it okay if you are eight, but not 18? I don’t know the
answer to these questions; they seem unanswerable. Or at the least, they put us on slippery terrain
that I, for one, prefer not to cross.

Which is my point. I don’t, actually, trust myself to foist my Halloweenish standards and motives on
others. I can’t defend them anymore than you could defend yours. Why do we dress up on Halloween,
anyway? Should we start explaining that too? I’ve always been a good mimic and I enjoy accents. I
love to travel, too, and have been to every continent but Antarctica. When I lived in Bangladesh, I
bought a sari because it was beautiful, even though I looked stupid in it and never wore it once. Am I
fetishizing and appropriating others’ cultural experiences? Probably. But I really, really like them too.

Even if we could agree on how to avoid offense – and I’ll note that no one around campus seems
overly concerned about the offense taken by religiously conservative folks to skin-revealing costumes
– I wonder, and I am not trying to be provocative: Is there no room anymore for a child or young
person to be a little bit obnoxious… a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American
universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even
transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition.
And the censure and prohibition come from above, not from yourselves! Are we all okay with this
transfer of power? Have we lost faith in young people's capacity – in your capacity - to exercise selfcensure,
through social norming, and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you?
We tend to view this shift from individual to institutional agency as a tradeoff between libertarian vs.
liberal values (“liberal” in the American, not European sense of the word).

Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are
offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free
and open society.

But – again, speaking as a child development specialist – I think there might be something missing in
our discourse about the exercise of free speech (including how we dress ourselves) on campus, and it
is this: What does this debate about Halloween costumes say about our view of young adults, of their
strength and judgment?

In other words: Whose business is it to control the forms of costumes of young people? It's not mine, I
know that.

Happy Halloween.