Ziggy

So now we are discussing what they are inevitably are gonna do. When it was CNN and Politico who reported this.....Who is the crazy conspiracy people again?

How do you know his obtuse... angle? College friends? Dont ask dont tell..... crap, that doesnt apply anymore. Well I saw it on the internet once, so its gotta be true.

oh oh I know your obtuse.....angle

Why is it so difficult to actually discuss the thread, and ignore the inflammatory posts. Can we stop attacking posters, and get back to discussing topics.

Is this as crazy as GWB invading a foreign sovereign nation without cause, against our constitution, without declaration of war, without being impeached? I'm going with no. What do you think? Where is your outrage over the failure to prosecute Bush for "all the wrong he and his admin have caused?" Not sure if I am following correctly. But which nation are you referring to, or are you speaking of other people who wanted GWB impeached over Iraq. What? I don't understand your confusion. Which country did GWB "without cause, against our constitution, without declaration of war, without being impeached" invade?

"Those "scandals" include 4 deaths in Libya and some mid-level bozos at the IRS being douches, something that he has no direct control over. Bush started a trillion dollar, 3,000 death war for no reason. Do go on about how you hate Obama because things aren't going well for you though. " What do you think about the four Americans who have been killed by Obama administration without affording them their constitutional rights. And, Bush mismanaged Iraq, I agree. But he had the backing of congress, and killed a tyrant who used chemical weapons, and had the ability to restart his WMD programs at will, attacked and invaded his neighbors, killed possibly hundreds of thousands of people, but hey he didn't attack the US so lets just forget those "people", cause they are not Americans and as such should have to endure the evil that Saddam created for the whole country. Maybe we should have just let Hitler off, and only attacked Japan cause we had no reason to defeat Nazi Germany.

Please present some examples of how Obama is different than Bush, or should I say how Obama is squeaky clean in comparison.

Is this as crazy as GWB invading a foreign sovereign nation without cause, against our constitution, without declaration of war, without being impeached? I'm going with no. What do you think? Where is your outrage over the failure to prosecute Bush for "all the wrong he and his admin have caused?" Not sure if I am following correctly. But which nation are you referring to, or are you speaking of other people who wanted GWB impeached over Iraq.

Yes Bin Laden is dead - great. I give the Obama team credit for getting rid of him. But Obama's boasts that the terrorist group was on the run - is contradicted by Libya (and the Obama team didn't want that narrative to be anything different - thus blaiming the terrorist attack on a you tube video - pathetic). Similiar to Bush's "Mission Accomplished". A good deed (killing Bin Laden) can not cover the other issues. Ethics doesn't work that way. It is always good to get an ethics lesson. It is a subject I want to understand better. Is it ethical to continue to post statements like "I wonder if the military was told to 'stand down' in any of those and if our citizens were killed while under a prolonged attack" when the 'stand down' rumor has been completely shredded with facts about military logistics such as how long it takes to get a fighter jet airborne and how far the refueling assets were located. Further, Special Operation Command Africa choose to keep 4 soldiers in Tripoli vs. Benghazi. Also on the topics of ethics, how ethical is it to post an editorial is is less factual than an Al Qaeda video featuring Osama? That last link you posted...http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348810/nixon-fair-comparison-victor-davis-hanson ...seems to fit that bill. Not to conjure up the whole Libya thing again, but what do you say to the people, who think we should have had some forces on alert on September 11th. Should we have been better prepared for the possibility of an attack.

The setting being different means everything. OK. I respect your opinion. I just don't see it that way. There is no law to support the stance I have regarding non-workplace discrimination, but there is a related law that covers the workplace. If hateful/harmful words are uttered in the workplace, connotated to someone's protected basis under, say, Title VII, the employer can be found guilty of allowing a discriminatory environment to persist. Those same words & actions don't magically become OK because they're uttered on the street, at least not in my opinion. There's just no law (currently) that covers such a thing. I don't think that is quite right. I think it would be one thing if a person of Native American descent was told they didn't get a raise, or a job because they were a "redskin" then I think you are correct. But just being called a name I can not fathom being discrimination, I would think some form of action or inaction would be needed to dive into the realm of discrimination. So, its pretty nit picky, but I think the way I understand discrimination, as long as the term is only spoken and the employee is treated from a work stand point the exact same way, then its not discrimination. If name calling was discrimination I would imagine a lot of stupid people would claim discrimination for being called an idiot. It is quite right. Words used frequently enough, or in a severe enough situation (if it's only one time) can create a hostile work environment, and if those words are attached to a protected basis (such as national origin, or race, or color, etc) then it can become discriminatory. There's ample case law to support this. Opinions are fine, but legal precedent is what we're delving into now. You and I may have our opinions on what does or doesn't constitute discrimination in the workplace, but our opinions are irrelevant to what discrimination is defined as under law. First, I was trying to continue with the theme of the thread being the Redskins organization. Second, creating a hostile work environment and calling someone a name are not the same thing. That was my intention, about not being quite right. Most generally you are correct that businesses lose almost every time because the laws are stacked against employers. But as long as the Redskins organization has been around this has never been an issue.

Worse than Benghazi, though? OK. Second worst. It goes 1. Benghazi, 2. This, 3. Solyndra, 4. Fast & Furious. I don't think that anything else should even be on the list. The fact that Obama is not even American has to be up there. Trump's investigators are close to the truth, I'm just sure of it. OK . . . I was joking . . . but apparently around 41% of Republicans do believe that Benghazi is the worst political scandal in American history. Sometimes I am simply stunned by the level of ignorance out there. (And no, I don't mean to imply that ignorance is unique to any single party. 10% of Democrats and 20% of Independents agreed.) http://www.upi.com/b.../7321368469022/ The follow up answers from those 41% are awesome. The fact that 20% of independent and 10% of Democrats agree is pretty interesting too. I mean that is a pretty major label for a democrat to push on their own president. That means they believe the scandal is worse than Iran/Contra and Watergate. Oh wells. Back to the AP story. As of now this is a total waste of time. I see no reason to be upset with the current information that is out there. As long as the government is only trying to close the leaks, and is following the law, I have no problem with them listening collecting phone records of reporters with just cause.

I think this is pretty easy to decide, and that is the IRS. Let me shoot down the rest first. **Benghazi is pretty much dead in the non political public, its just a far right and far left fight now. It may effect Hillary in the long run, but for Obama and the country, its a dead story. **"Obama"care, is done, its not going away, and it will take a super republican majority to kill off anything major, that could be decades away. I think some things will be striped away in the future but its just another government run piece of crap. **The justice department phone records capture, is still pretty thin on facts, but it sounds like the AP has someone leaking classified info to them, and they are being investigated for it. But I haven't heard any arrests or pressure put on the AP to publish information that is only good for the Administration. So seems like its pretty much is a normal investigation to prevent classified leaks that could put American covert agents lives and missions at risk for a news story. Ok, finally, the IRS is supposed to be a completely nonpolitical governmental agency. People already have a dislike for the IRS and IRS agents. But most people hope that the IRS treats everyone the same, and shouldn't target people who oppose the current administration for political gain. We must have some confidence in the IRS to be "fair" and we can not allow this to be pushed under the rug because the US people can not afford for the IRS to become politicized and under the control of either party. Also just saw Obama has asked the "acting" head of the IRS to step down, so at least something is being done.

Maybe people aren't, but I am in the sense that "someone" is trying to make a discrimination case out of this. If the term "redskin" were directed at an employee in a work setting, and that employee objected to its use, and the employer did nothing about it and allowed the action to continue frequently and long enough, the employer could be found guilty of discrimination. So "trying to make a discrimination case out of this" isn't coming from left field. It's just that there's no specifically applicable law. I don't think that is quite right. I think it would be one thing if a person of Native American descent was told they didn't get a raise, or a job because they were a "redskin" then I think you are correct. But just being called a name I can not fathom being discrimination, I would think some form of action or inaction would be needed to dive into the realm of discrimination. So, its pretty nit picky, but I think the way I understand discrimination, as long as the term is only spoken and the employee is treated from a work stand point the exact same way, then its not discrimination. If name calling was discrimination I would imagine a lot of stupid people would claim discrimination for being called an idiot. I have been meaning to get to this for a while, but the fact that Dan Snyder said the name will "never change", makes me want the name to change. I hate that guy, he is an idiot. But it is interesting that the last two times this has been an issue, is 1992 when the Redskins won the Super Bowl, and now that RG3 has made them a popular team again. And for reference, the 1992 one I believe lasted something like 15 years, so I doubt the name is going to change anytime soon, unless Snyder can make some money off of it or the NFL forces the issue.

Are who NRA members? The people attending the NRA convention, to whom these products are marketed? Pretty sure they are. The vendors. Yes, the vendors are NRA members. Proof? And way to edit my response, and dodge what I said.

Are who NRA members? The people attending the NRA convention, to whom these products are marketed? Pretty sure they are. The vendors. The products are marketed to Americans, your an American so they are marketing to you..... you want to shoot a fake Obama looking zombie, got it. There are all kinds of products marketed toward all kinds of people, just because they are marketing it to people doesn't mean automatically the consumer will want the product, or even agree with the product, hence them being asked to remove the display at the convention.

No conspiracy about polls. And I will leave who is trolling up to the board.

Same could be said for every product that has ever been used to kill someone illegally. Guns are sold in the US with the intent to be used lawfully to hunt, shoot targets, defense, collections, as an investment, and to resell/part out. The 3D printed guns are completely legal, and are in effect no different that if someone made a gun at home from traditional metal fabrication. Inferring what someone means does little to further the discussion.

The target in question: Are they really NRA members? I think that you might need some proof on that? And if the big bad NRA is so bad, I am surprised they didn't buy all the people who attended the convention one as a door prize. This is no different than lefties who burned Bush effigies at anti war rallies. Idiots who take advantage of our freedoms.

Right, about that

I have gay friends, people who I went to college with, and just some people I know who are gay. The gay lifestyle is just a stereotype, and like most stereotypes is stupid and usually wrong.

I really don't mind the sales tax deal for online stuff, maybe a standard 5% across the board for every purchase, and whatever state it is shipped to gets the electronic payment. But how technologically possible is it really to enforce this. Its the internet after all, it is almost impossible to stop companies from ignoring the law, or just changing the website to another country that doesn't enforce the tax.

Any poll can ask questions that can aim for specific results. Most people know the answer a registered R or D will give to most questions, and if you ask the right ones, you can make one side look a little crazy. Was it asked about if President Bush ordered 9/11, or the 1% percent are intentionally trying to keep poor people poor, that FDR allowed Pearl harbor to happen so the US would be forced into WWII, or the CIA killed JFK. Each side has its crazies, each side has its uneducated followers. Trying to put 20-30% of Americans who are republicans down as dumb, redneck, racists is just trolling if you ask me.

Penn State, not sure about any others ATM

I just wanted to add, that Pelini was recruiting for the Big 12 and the Peso defense to stop the spread, when we switched to the big 10, the team starting looking for bigger DL and bigger LB, which changed our recruiting style. We are fine at positions they didn't change like DB and offense, because they were recruited the same all the way through. We went from needing 3 or 4 LBs to 8 to 10. And our DL has been having health issues ever since Suh left. Lastly, many of our young players need to learn the system, and Pelini admitted he could have used many of our DL recruits and that may have helped solidify our problems at DT.

If pressed? What? Let's wait and see. I'm guessing from your described possibilities that you don't have much experience with this sort of thing . . .