Did I pick the right decade? It was kind of a guess. I’m old but I’m not that old. 😉
Dictionary says…
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/go-sit-on-a-tack
Cease annoying me; go fly a kite, go to hell (1900+)
This thread has at least two too many statements/open letters.
But, Sir, I spent a lot of time on my science project open letter!
Just kidding, I never spent a lot of time on my science projects.
Here is my statement/open letter defending Warbler here:
When in the course of forum events, it may sometimes become necessary for forum members to be banned, temporarily or not, by the moderation of the forum. It is my opinion that a miscarriage of justice was committed when Warbler was banned on Sunday.
While Warbler’s posts regarding the issue of the National Anthem may have been inflammatory, such is the nature of an argumentative discussion. A certain level of leeway must be allowed, as long as all people feel comfortable in the discussion. As I did not see any complaints of legitimate offense during the course of our previous discussion, I feel that it is safe to say that all people felt comfortable in that discussion. Angry, yes, but comfortable. If certain people did not feel at ease because of Warbler’s presence, my opinion may have been different.
Next, I feel that there is an amount of contradiction of actions by the entirety of the moderation on this board. While many other, more inflammatory members have continued to roam free on this forum for many months, and in some cases, even years, Warbler got punished simply, in my opinion, on a first offense. This also leaves open the door to the question of if this action has belied prevailing political opinions that some may have.
Interesting discussion requires a reasonable variety of viewpoints. Some viewpoints, such as white supremacism, are unacceptable, and I am not saying that those viewpoints are within that reasonable variety. However, I do believe that Warbler’s viewpoint, at this moment, was in that reasonable variety.
I do respect the right that the moderation have to discipline any member however they see fit, for any reason, or for no reason at all. I 100% believe in that right, and would fight for it. However, I do also believe in the right to voice grievances of the leadership of any organization. These are my grievances, and I hope they are considered by the leadership here.
It’s dead, Jim.
Senate Republicans decided Tuesday not to hold a vote on unwinding the Affordable Care Act, effectively preserving the landmark 2010 law for the foreseeable future.
In deciding not to take up the latest proposal, authored by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (La.), their fellow Republicans are abandoning the policy goal that has animated their party for more than seven years.
Top Republicans, however, also indicated they have little interest in shoring up the existing insurance market operating under the 2010 law. Instead, they suggested, the ongoing instability would backfire on Democrats and build momentum for the ACA’s eventual repeal.
“I personally think it’s time for the American people to see what the Democrats have done to them on health care,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). “They’re going to find they can’t pay for it, they’re going to find that it doesn’t work. . . . Now that will make it tough on everybody. Maybe that’s what it take to wise people up.”
Wednesday is the deadline for insurers to sign contracts with the federal government so that they can sell health plans on the ACA marketplaces for 2018. Many companies are hiking these rates by double digits, but they have suggested they would curb such increases if they had assurances that the federal government would provide cost-sharing reduction payments for all of next year.
At the moment, the Trump administration is only covering cost-sharing payments on a month-to-month basis; a White House official confirmed Tuesday that it had made a payment for September. Asked what the president intended to continue making payments going forward, the aide said officials have not yet decided what to do.
Republicans accepted the reality on Monday evening that the push had sputtered out after Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) joined two of her fellow Republicans in formal opposition, but made their final decision during their weekly policy lunch, according to Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).
Picture perfect.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html
WASHINGTON — At least six of President Trump’s closest advisers occasionally used private email addresses to discuss White House matters, current and former officials said on Monday.
The disclosures came a day after news surfaced that Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and adviser, used a private email account to send or receive about 100 work-related emails during the administration’s first seven months. But Mr. Kushner was not alone. Stephen K. Bannon, the former chief White House strategist, and Reince Priebus, the former chief of staff, also occasionally used private email addresses. Other advisers, including Gary D. Cohn and Stephen Miller, sent or received at least a few emails on personal accounts, officials said.
Ivanka Trump, the president’s elder daughter, who is married to Mr. Kushner, used a private account when she acted as an unpaid adviser in the first months of the administration, Newsweek reported Monday. Administration officials acknowledged that she also occasionally did so when she formally became a White House adviser. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter with reporters.
Officials are supposed to use government emails for their official duties so their conversations are available to the public and those conducting oversight. But it is not illegal for White House officials to use private email accounts as long as they forward work-related messages to their work accounts so they can be preserved.
During the 2016 presidential race, Mr. Trump repeatedly harped on Hillary Clinton’s use of a private account as secretary of state, making it a centerpiece of his campaign and using it to paint her as untrustworthy. “We must not let her take her criminal scheme into the Oval Office,” Mr. Trump said last year. His campaign rallies often boiled over with chants of “Lock her up!”
Can you see it in 2047? Senator Donald Beauregard Bannon of the InfoWars Party claims that if the sainted Colin Kaepernick were alive today
2047 seems like an untimely death.
We don’t have any polling specifically about Trump’s recent NFL comments, but a Quinnipiac University poll from 2016 found that only 38 percent of those surveyed approved of players choosing not to stand during the anthem. But while these NFL protests may be unpopular right now, particularly with white people, similar protests in the past — involving race, civil rights and varying definitions of patriotism — came to be viewed much more positively after the fact.
Marches for civil rights during the 1960s were generally seen negatively at the time. As the Washington Post noted last year, most Americans didn’t approve of the Freedom Riders, the March on Washington in 1963 or other similar protests. In fact, many Americans thought that these protests would hurt the advancement of civil rights. In addition, but many Americans held mixed-to-negative views of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. In a 1966 Gallup survey, 63 percent of Americans gave King a negative score on a scale from -5 to +5. Now, the civil rights marches are viewed as major successes, and just 4 percent of Americans rated King negatively on that same scale in a 2011 Gallup poll.
Many Americans also viewed gay rights marchers during the AIDS epidemic negatively. According to Business Insider, the March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay and Bi Equal Rights and Liberation in April 1993 drew more than 800,000 people fighting against discrimination and seeking more funding for AIDS research. But in a Newsweek survey conducted at the time, only 23 percent of Americans thought that the demonstration did more good than harm in the fight for gay rights. Today, gay rights organizations celebrate the march, same-sex marriage is legal and much of the platform demanded by protesters seems mainstream.
This.
https://twitter.com/jnsanchez/status/912292192454086656
Bob Costas NAILED this. Patriotism comes in many forms, but it’s been conflated w/ bumper sticker flag waving & “military only.” 🙌
[video]
Now I know why you get all the ladies.
I still disagree with the decision and was about to write a whole rant on why, but I’ve decided it’s best to drop the issue at this moment.
Not sure why Warbler was given a time out. I thought he was being pretty reasonable (even though I disagreed with him).
Agreed.
I think even a temp ban was a bit much, but whatever.
I agree.
We all get a little angry sometimes. Warb was a good forum member.
If they have no problem with the Anthem, why are they protesting during the Anthem?
As many people have said many times even though you refuse to understand, their problem is not with the anthem, but with the institutional problems in America.
then find another way to protest that doesn’t insult everything this country stands for.
Freedom of speech and freedom of protest are exactly what this country was based on and is supposed to stand for.
If they have no problem with the Anthem, why are they protesting during the Anthem?
As many people have said many times even though you refuse to understand, their problem is not with the anthem, but with the institutional problems in America.
(if shown on tv cameras? I imagine the focus would be on the players?)
I believe the anthem is always televised.
Warbler, is there any level of protest you would accept during the playing of the national anthem?
No. It is not a time for protest.
Says who?
says me. The Anthem is a time for reflection and honoring the country and what it stands for.
That’s what it is for you. You’ve chosen to make it that.
And so has every other American until last year!
Uh, no. Not every American was on your side until they suddenly weren’t last year.
Well just about every other American, until this fad began.
Source?
All the secondary networks here mess with aspect ratios and resolutions.
This horse has been beaten to death so much I’m concerned for its safety.
WASHINGTON — President Trump on Sunday issued a new order banning almost all travel to the United States from seven countries, including most of the nations covered by his original travel ban, citing threats to national security posed by letting their citizens into the country.
Starting next month, most citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea will be indefinitely banned from entering the United States, Mr. Trump said in a proclamation released Sunday night. Citizens of Iraq and some groups of people in Venezuela who seek to visit the United States will face restrictions or heightened scrutiny.
Mr. Trump’s original travel ban, which caused chaos at airports earlier this year and set off a furious legal challenge to the president’s authority, expired on Sunday even as the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments about its constitutionality on Oct. 10. The new bans will take effect Oct. 18.
“As president, I must act to protect the security and interests of the United States and its people,” Mr. Trump said in the proclamation, which White House officials said had the same force as an executive order. He added that the restrictions will remain in effect until the governments of the affected nations “satisfactorily address the identified inadequacies.”
Officials described the new order as a much more targeted effort than the president’s earlier one. Each of the countries will be under its own set of travel restrictions, though in most cases citizens of the countries will be unable to emigrate to the United States personally and most will be barred from coming to work, study or vacation in America.
Iran, for example, will still be able to send its citizens on student exchanges, though such visitors will be subject to enhanced screening. Certain government officials of Venezuela and their families will be barred from visiting the United States. Somalis will no longer be allowed to emigrate to the United States, but may visit with extra screening.
Holy shit Warb.
I was simply trying to show that some peaceful protests are bad. I think we agree that I picked a good example of a bad peaceful protest.
I have every right to be of the opinion that the peaceful protest of the National Anthem is a bad peaceful protest(but nowhere near as bad as what the Westboro Baptists did).
Pissing all over symbols and representations of what young men bled and died for directly in front of veterans who are just trying to enjoy a ball game
Wrong.
I hate to break it to you Warbler, but this guy is on your side.
Did you miss the post where I told him to shut up and go way? Also if you read his post, you’d know we disagree as to how bad it is to protest the Anthem.
He seems to think protesting during the anthem is a terrible thing, so he’s certainly more on your side than mine.
perhaps. But I don’t want him anywhere near my side. Same with Trump.
You can’t choose who’s on your side of any issue.
Warbler, is there any level of protest you would accept during the playing of the national anthem?
No. It is not a time for protest.
Says who?
says me. The Anthem is a time for reflection and honoring the country and what it stands for.
That’s what it is for you. You’ve chosen to make it that.
And so has every other American until last year!
Says who?
Guys who made it were clearly under pressure.
Dominic.
Warbler, is there any level of protest you would accept during the playing of the national anthem?
Extraordinariy times call for extraordinary measures.
We live in extraordinary times.
Now think of the most despicable and disgusting act they could ever do.
I find this comment somewhat homophobic.
It’s only despicable and disgusting when they do it.
it was phrased very poorly.
Ok.
With all the hurricanes, earthquakes, nuclear bombs, and whatnot, it is a little bit surprising that we’re still here.
