Lorewarn

People misunderstand Saban when he starts complaining about new trends in cfb. They think he's out of touch and that this is a sign that he's about to lose his edge and dominance. It's really just a warning. He's essentially saying, "This is bad for the sport. Okay, you wanna do it this way? Fine. I'll beat your a$$ with it better than you could possibly imagine."

Justice Kennedy is wrong on almost all of this. First of all, is NC prohibiting them from using the websites, or looking at them at all? Key distinction. But regardless let's break this down: ...so what? What other people voluntarily chose for their preference has zero bearing on someone else having a right to that same thing. I imagine North Carolina also bars sex offenders access to a place that is for many the principal source of education - schools. Do we all have a problem with pedophiles not being able to go near schools? Is that some grave infringement on a right? Also, last I checked there is nothing in the Bill of Rights about having the right to knowing current events, as that's an active right and our Constitution doesn't have active rights, it only has passive ones. Well I at least know that we aren't talking about Twitter here, and this would again be dependent on the specificity of the NC law, but I somehow doubt that it bans sex offenders from LinkedIn, Indeed, Monster, Zip Recruiter, Simplyhired.com, applicantstack.com, GlassDoor, and careers.{insertstatename}.gov Even if it was/is the modern public square (again, it's not), they aren't banned from listening at the very least. Speaking, maybe, if they're banned from ALL social media, but certainly not listening. lol WHAT??? Does Justice Kennedy know that there's an entire internet that exists outside of social media sites? You can spend literal days and days and days exploring something like, I don't know, the Apollo program, without ever visiting a social media site. Once again, not a right, not protected by the Constitution. The only right you have is not to be punished by the government for what you say; you have no promise that the most powerful way of saying it to the most people will be made available to you. Last I checked the government didn't ensure that every home had a radio tower and broadcast setup when radio was the post powerful mechanism to make someone's voice heard. I don't think they gave everyone video cameras when television became the most powerful either. Even still after all that, this is an issue of the government restricting access to social media, which is fundamentally different than private companies restricting access to their products. So even if this wasn't a terrible perspective, it still doesn't apply, at all, to what Twitter/Facebook/etc. decide with their own terms of service.

All he did was ask if you could actually think that a costly plan to combat illegal immigration and drugs, and failed at doing either, was a good thing? Is that so wrong? Can you not handle that?

Here's a great, great video essay on the progression of the Thor character that really dives into some masterful direction and writing from Taika Waititi. Really saved the character imo.

Couldn't agree more. But that's part and parcel trying to communicate with Archy, who will literally never find the bottom of the rabbit hole of parsing through every word and very quickly and gladly claiming that someone is putting words in his mouth.

Yeah, days later. You rightfully interpreted it that way because that was all there was to interpret for the first while of the conversation. He's since changed his tone, but that's really all I'm getting at; the fact that what he's offering as nuance and disclaimers now didn't exist before. Figuring out if that change in viewpoint is because he's changed his mind, is trying to tapdance out disclaimers for what he really thinks, or he's communicating poorly is really impossible to know, but easy to make a guess on based off history (similar to guessing about Walker's fitness for public service).

Okay. Let's keep in mind that this was your second comment in regards to Walker (the first being that he should leverage his football fame if he wants to win): Not if it’s against Warnock. Then here's your first post in response to Enhance The next: So to recap, #1 he needs to not lose (aka win) against Warnock #2 he can't be any worse than Warnock on policy #3 even if he's too unstable to make good policy he still offers something of value as a Senator Forgive me if I'm failing to see all the focus on mental health in here, and the acknowledgment that the above three assertions are only true if he's stable enough for office.

Because you're on record thinking he needs to win against Warnock period, not only "if the primaries showed him electable and his 20 yr alleged issues behind him because of treatment"

No s#!t. Why wouldn't a newspaper that makes money on people looking at their news utilize tools to get more people to look at their news? What does that have to do with Twitter being the public square? The internet itself is the new public/town square. Twitter is just one storefront surrounding it.

I didn't say that you don't care. I said the reason you brought up how amazing and inspiring Herschel Walker getting elected wasn't because of your care, and you having history of illnesses in your family (which everybody does) doesn't disprove my thoughts about you and your theoretical support for Walker.

"I've just been there." Sheesh.

What's the over/under on this one coming back to bite us in the a$$? 95%?

It's hard to know for sure what you're saying here with the very confusing grammar, but if I'm understanding you right, here's the thing. If it's something you care about, it's something you talk about; not something you only talk about if it's already being talked about. The context in which you bring up mental health in regards to Herschel Walker really couldn't make it any clearer to anybody that the reason you're bringing it up has nothing to do with it being something you care about. Not that you have absolutely zero care about mental health, but specifically that whatever amount you care about it was not the motivation for you suddenly wondering about how great and amazing it would be for people to see a Republican Senator overcome his issues and get elected.

Twitter isn't the public square.

Wait so you freely admit that you're confident someone who might not be fit for office should definitely beat the incumbent Senator (before knowing whether or not he's fit for office), and your reasoning for that is... he's voted in support of COVID relief and voting rights and election security? I thought you'd at least trot out some 'murdering babies' type of rationale or something that could actually be understandably alarming according to your worldview.

Wait so you freely admit that you're confident someone who might not be fit for office should definitely beat the incumbent Senator (before knowing whether or not he's fit for office), and your reasoning for that is... he's voted in support of COVID relief and voting rights and election security? I thought you'd at least trot out some 'murdering babies' type of rationale or something that could actually be understandably alarming according to your worldview.

You've been engaging in conversations about Walker/Warnock for days now, and still haven't offered a single concern about that voting record. What's he done that makes it so clear he needs to lose to someone who might not at all be fit for office?

That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that the Babylon Bee knew and violated the rules - what else would you expect to happen? It's a very clear and evident part of their policy that deadnaming or misgendering someone isn't allowed on their platform. The Bee can't make up it's mind if its platform is "just jokes" or if they're the last line of defense of culture warriors. Either way, they've tweeted all sorts of s#!t for years and years that would go against your so called imaginary one acceptable opinion with no punishment.

At the very least, if you want to claim that democrats want open borders, you can't use ending something that's only existed for two years during an unprecedented global event as evidence.

This is the rub for me. I was pretty unsettled when I heard this and didn't feel good about it. Then I realized that the photos could be and in my estimation are likely, the only feasible way of letting people know that their loved ones have died. If it's a claim, and you live inside the insulated Russian propaganda state, there's no way you'd believe it without proof. Still not sure that I "support" it, but I think there is absolutely a justifiable reason for doing it. Certainly not thankful, god no. But our invasions of all those places were evil, and I would not hold it against the governments or citizens of any of those places for letting us know that.

We know little about his background I don't live there I'm not involved in races out of state I don't care to spend much time looking into it You offer so many disclaimers in regards to the R candidate and nothing but confidence against the D one.

https://www.newsweek.com/greg-abbott-has-figured-out-we-can-stop-trade-along-texas-border-ken-paxton-1698290?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

This isn't even remotely true. Like, not even in the same universe close. You're right, it's not. They weren't banned, they were suspended for 12 hours starting after the removal of a tweet that went against their TOS. They're the ones that decided not to capitulate.

If everyone is constantly misinterpreting what you're trying to say, you're the problem.

My brother is a high up manager at Mediacom in Des Moines. He said 90% of their new customer base is people getting internet - very very few are starting from a position of wanting the tv, but they can be upsold.