Enhance

For starters, I think we have to be specific with what we're talking about. I draw issue with having to submit the literal questions to be asked at a press conference, presumably under the agreement that this is the only way it'll be answered and the only format in which it can be asked. Which, on the surface, that's kind of what this situation looked like. However, I don't have an issue with a reporter telling an interviewee the context in which they want to have an interview. That's just how reporting often works. I also think we have to remember two of the intended relationships and purposes of a reporter, which is to hold people in power accountable and provide information to the public. It's difficult for me to fantasize a scenario that applies to your hypothetical because the president is beholden to reporters (and the public by extension), and not the other way around.

As a general rule of thumb, it is considered wrong (even unethical) to send the literal questions to interviewees ahead of time. There are often circumstances where you may tell an interviewee what you plan to ask (similar to what you mentioned) but you almost always just tell them generalities, and then you'd probably keep a few questions up your sleeve. All that said, I could certainly imagine a scenario where a public official's people demand questions be submitted ahead of time or else they won't be able to ask a question. Some news organizations will probably acquiesce to this in exchange for the soundbite or quote, particularly if they think their competitors are going to agree to it. I never worked something to the scale of a presidential press conference but it wouldn't surprise to me learn that this happens frequently. Personally, I would disagree with the practice, but it certainly puts the journalist/news organization between a rock and a hard place. They could say 'no, we won't play your game' but then all the readers/viewers will go watch the other station or read the other website that had the content. Taking too many stances like that won't pay the bills and keep the lights on. Some of that is just speculation, though. Like I said, I'm not sure how often something like this happens and I didn't quite catch the context of this Biden presser yet. I was never asked to submit my questions in writing in the four years I was a broadcaster but I worked for a local market, nothing national. Things might be different higher up the totem pole. In general though I definitely disagree with the practice.

I have always felt similarly. It's not just area colleges though, right? Don't most colleges (at least, public ones) force students to take gen eds and electives to fulfill their degree requirements? I took a lot of "interesting" courses in college. History of WWII, History of Rock, Philosophy, various political science courses (got a minor in that), Spanish, various writing courses, geology, etc. Even took a film class where we watched obscure foreign films, grew mustaches and smoked Parliament Lights (kidding on the last two). I guess I would say they made me smarter, but I could fill at least four full semesters worth of courses I took that had NOTHING to do with my degree and ultimate profession. And several of them (sorry, geology) I don't remember a damn thing about and only took them because I had to. But, the chicks definitely dug my obscure WWII knowledge at the bars.

Colorado actually had a law in that case, and Tennessee does NOT have a law against the thing you’re alleging was an injustice. Are my posts translating into Dutch or something here? Can anyone confirm?

Colorado has a public accommodation law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The baker won on religious grounds. Tennessee has no public accommodation law banning discrimination based on political affiliation or political beliefs. So, the question becomes what "rule" or law the floral company allegedly violated.

That's not the "rules" according to Tennessee state laws on public accommodation. By and large, sexual orientation is a far more protected class at the state and federal level than political affiliation is. Not all beliefs are created equal. But, it's easier to make conservatives into victims than it is to talk about the underlying reason why the floral company did what they did.

Can confirm that the current Ignore function capabilities are what they are. Administrators from other message boards that use the same software as this one have been petitioning the developers for years to be able to ignore/block the user entirely (similar to what you can do on Facebook). Nothing has happened yet. Assuming this doesn't get changed any time soon, self-control is your best strategy. If you choose to read/engage with someone's post, even if you have them on ignore, that's kind of on you. There's no administrative functionality we have to hand hold the situation any further than what we're able to do right now.

Lucky we're all intelligent enough to know that's not the rules. Only people with a severe conservative victim complex would equate a floral company denying service to a Republican fundraising event to a baker being sued for not wanting to serve gay couples. But, we don't know anybody like that, do we?

I could take a peek in the admin panel and report back (but, my gut is that this is just how it functions).

This nebulous bullseye would alleviate only a small portion of gun violence deaths. The vast majority of gun violence isn't committed by people suffering from a sociopathic disorder. If memory serves, 20,000+ Americans commit suicide with a gun every year. Most gun deaths are actually perpetrated in our streets and in our homes, not in our schools. A comprehensive solution between accessibility and mental health care seems like a fair and balanced solution. The Right gets to achieve their noble cause of helping people with their mental health issues and the left gets to take some guns away. Everybody wins!

I moved a few posts out of here. No politics, no political commentary, no political jokes, etc., in the football forum please. Thank you.

While I agree, we already infringe upon personal liberties all over the place in this country, and that includes the ability to own guns in many circumstances. I don't look at law-abiding gun owners as potential victims in the gun control conversation. The victims are the dead people and children killed by gun violence. That doesn't mean I want to 'take their guns away' but my sympathy scale is heavily favored towards the victims of gun violence and not the gun owners that might have a harder time buying a gun. I think we could say this about any legislation so it's sort of ag iven. In the UK, local jurisdictions manage the process by law. Any good law will have checks and balances in place so really it's up to our elected officials to find common ground and pass common sense reform. Generally speaking, I think a lot of these debates get too caught up in red tape. Bottom line for me is I realize there's no realistic path towards eliminating guns in this country, but there are paths towards making it far more difficult for people who shouldn't have guns to get them. And if making it harder for some folks to buy guns prevents the next mass school shooting, I'm here for it.

Positioning the question this way is, in my opinion, problematic. It indirectly suggests no room for compromise for fear of being inconvenienced. In my opinion, there is no solution to gun violence in this country that does not in some way inconvenience the practice of gun ownership. Phrasing the question this way also assumes people will always do the right thing, which we know they don't. So, I think it's important to look at it from a different angle i.e. what's a policy that saves lives, protects our children, and still allows for law-abiding citizens to own firearms in a responsible format. But if inconveniencing gun owners is more important than preventing children from being murdered in school (which is largely the message being sent by certain elements of our society) then there is no satisfactory policy out there. Responsibility is really one of the key issues here and we just don't have enough of it. But, I personally think there are a number of solutions other countries have implemented that we could consider implementing or even tweaking to fit our needs. Things like: 1) A more robust application process 2) Requiring a medical doctor/personal physician to approve someone for gun ownership 3) Requiring independent referees (non-family and citizens in good-standing) to act as references on a gun purchase application, to provide statements about the applicant's character, mental state, etc. 4) Proof that the weapon has a secure location to be kept in the home Another option (which would never happen here, but I'll mention it anyways) is requiring someone to provide 'good reason' for owning a firearm i.e. profession, sport, hunting, etc. For example, self-defense or 'I just want one' wouldn't be a good enough reason. Again, I wouldn't get too held up on this particular point. I don't think it would ever happen here. But, I do think some variations of the aforementioned options are worth consideration as they have been found quite effective as part of a comprehensive solution in other countries.

I think it's really tough to takeaway much of anything from the last few years of running backs, or to project out how things will look for 2023. Grant seemed to have the most potential last year at times, but inconsistent running back play was part of the poor mixed cocktail that included poor o-line play and big coaching challenges. I think we've all beat this horse for years, but it'd be nice to have a really good o-line again, if not for the sole purpose of being a bit of an equalizer to help determine where the RB's need to improve.

Just FYI - I hid a few posts on here because they appeared to come from exclusive membership/paid content from a Husker sports content provider. Our rules currently prohibit copying & pasting that kind of info.