Moiraine

I wonder what the legalities of doing that are, and why they would do it over what one person is doing. He doesn't speak for everyone just like the actions of a few bad police officers don't speak for all police.

I think the selective outrage is the goal of both parties. If one party is loud enough about the other (even if they do exactly the same thing) then people will think they don't do the exact thing. Then no one is ever punished. They're just playing people.

None of my dreams ever come true!

if the SEC wins together does that mean they lose together too?

Smart guy

#9 Tennessee down 13-3 to Appalachian State.

What a chart. I can see how the political process makes it easy for "tough on crime" to win. With as much that will always be at DA's discretion, that builds up and results in these sobering statistics. Feel-good campaign platitudes =/= sound outcomes. Is there a per capita chart? 'Cause this chart is pretty meaningless.

Can't read about it now but did he wear the socks during a game? I really doubt they would let him. Or continue to let him after they notice. No, he wore those during practice the other day after he spoke to the press about his position. That's probably why the NFL allows it then. If they didn't it'd open a whole can of worms for other things players wear to practice. Anyhow, I saw his explanation for the socks. He said he has police friends and relatives and the socks represent the jerks not all of the police. Kinda reminded me of Trump saying he has Black friends.

Can't read about it now but did he wear the socks during a game? I really doubt they would let him. Or continue to let him after they notice.

I don't have the quote because I saw it on a video. In the small part of tonight's speech by Trump that I saw, he said something like: We're going to bring more jobs to Americans, particularly Black and Hispanic Americans who have it so horribly. Then everyone cheered. If any Democratic candidate said they were particularly going to help minorities get jobs, many of the people who just cheered for Trump would throw a hissy fit and cry about affirmative action.

No. Pelini plateaued, and that was only part of why he was fired. Riley needs to continue to improve. 8 wins would be an improvement. Year 3 if Riley wins less than 9, then he should be on the hot seat or fired. If Riley was really smart he would have went 0-12 last year...this season he could have hit that magic number of 1-11...But wait...in year three he could DOUBLE his win total, something most coaches never do...2-10 Soon enough Bama fans will be saying "How come Riley can double his win total but Saban is struggling to finish 11-1 after an 11-1 season" You ignored the last sentence and the part where I said 8.

No. Pelini plateaued, and that was only part of why he was fired. Riley needs to continue to improve. 8 wins would be an improvement. Year 3 if Riley wins less than 9, then he should be on the hot seat or fired.

Here's to 6-6! It's an improvement! Not in my opinion. The percentage is better but it means we didn't go to a bowl game. Our bowl game last year was a decent win. I'd be fine with 7-6 if we win 9 the next year and 10 the year after that.

The bar is to improve, and then to improve the year after that, and then to improve the year after that. Both in getting better and having it show up in the number of wins. That being said I'm not gonna be too excited about 7 wins. 8 wins feels like the right track. Anything above that and I'm excited about year 3.

Shocking! For the love of God.

Animals without society or culture influence, completely normal, bang members of the same sex all the time. What's their explanation? Are you suggesting that humans should give in to any impulses or behavior tendancies they have, simply because it occurs in nature? lol no, of course not. I'm suggesting that the argument of "the gays are unnatural because evolution has given us a biological drive to procreate" isn't a rational argument. who says we evolved? There is no evidence of that evolution. You claim to only deal in facts, or only believe something if it has hard cold facts.. well, there are is scientific evidence that humans evolved. They have tried to link man, but it continues to fail and be proven false. lololol

Just re-read my post about transgender and I sounded totally ignorant saying they should wear a dress if they want. That was just a generalization. Men should act society's definition of feminine if they feel like it is what I was trying to say. Whatever they think that entails. I worked at a place where I met about 6 transgender females in various stages and they always got boobs first. Some still had beards but they had giant boobs. As a woman it made me feel like that's how I'm defined. Boobs. Not my personality or anything else. BOOBS. I'm not saying boobs are a bad thing but every single transgender female I've met went straight for them and they were always huge.

Men are more physically imposing and powerful than women. Most people don't have a hard time accepting this as a general, physiological statement with exceptions. This puts women in a position of vulnerability, which means that collectively, as a society, it's our responsibility to look out for them in a way that we wouldn't need to for men (again, in a general sense). We treat men and women differently because they are different, so no, those posters wouldn't have gotten bent out of shape, but that's actually a proper and good thing. This is most of it. I guess if Phillips had drug the equipment manager down 3 flights of stairs by his hair that'd almost be the equivalent?

Here are my unfiltered thoughts on the subject. People are born with a biological sex. That's the sex they are. (Not counting those born with 2). Gender is completely a social construct. I'm not saying men and women are the same. Men are probably born to be more fearless and women more nurturing. But as far as I can tell there is no biological reason for women to have long hair, wear make up, shave their legs or like the color pink. There's no biological reason for men to have short hair and wear lose clothing and not wear dresses and have bows in their hair. I'm not transgender so I can't be in their heads so maybe I shouldn't have an opinion on what I can't know for sure but I dont think their issue is their biological sex. Their issue is they want to be themselves and what they want to be doesn't agree with what society thinks someone of their gender should be. They shouldn't be maiming themselves to change their sex. They should ignore society and wear a dress if they want, whether they're biologically men or women.

Gonna say something unpopular here. It always seems weird to me when the Huskers carry the American flag out onto the field. They're playing a sport. It's not blessed by God or by the country. We build up sports to a weird level of importance. (Btw - I know they got the flag from someone in the military who spoke to them a few years ago)

Soooo.....people who work for corporations should have no say in laws passed in this country? Do you realize that is the vast majority of the work force? I guess you're not a big fan of free speech and their right to express their opinion on the governing of the country. Many many times congress attempts to pass legislation that affects certain industries and they have absolutely no clue what they are doing because they are not experts in that industry. This isn't an indictment against congress. There is no way you can be an expert in every industry your laws might affect. Industry leaders NEED to be involved in the process. Making it illegal for them to be involved is misguided and ignorant. I didn't say they should have no say. I said they shoudn't be involved in writing policy. Either by helping pen it or paying (which is of course illegal already but not punished). Politicians should be writing laws. They're lawmakers. It's what they're supposed to do. I was probably too general, so I'll be more specific about my intent: Exxon and Cargill shouldn't be writing laws about the environment or pollution. Coca Cola and McDonalds shouldn't be writing laws about health. Meat packing companies should not be writing policy on how their health inspections occur. People employed by a meat packing plant should not be doing health inspections on their own damn plant. This is happening right now because they have money and helped write the laws. People's lives are at risk. Scientists who've done research on those subjects should be the main people whose opinions the politicians seek. And so on. People currently employed by those companies should not be helping write laws. It's a conflict of interest and laws have been passed that help those corporations and hurt everyone else. I'd like an example of when someone in the industry should be making laws about said industry. Most laws are there to protect people from those industries so it should be health and safety experts and scientists that have the biggest say. Employees in corporations have expertise in making the companies more money and they want to stay healthy and safe like everyone else. The only reason a facotry knows anything about pollution they're causing is due to scientists looking into how it affects the air and water. Now some of those scientists work for those companies now but that's because those laws exist in the first place.

. I don't think you should be mad because you don't know what he needed the cash for. Could be it's for meth. Could be he doesn't have a credit card and uses cash a lot. I don't think the ebt balance carries over so you use it or lose it. I could be wrong.

Good post.

It's a successful season to me if we play better than last year, win more games than last year, and never get blown out.