SLAG-91

Your "inherent in political discussions" point is generally correct. Politicians have been a**holes to each other going back centuries, but they seemed more eloquent in their descriptions of their enemies. They also sometimes got the hell beaten out of them while on the job. It's just infinitely easier to be an a**hole now. Our last two presidents have been very unlikable people, in my view. Biden just has the veneer of "good ol' Joe from Scranton, fightin' for the common man." It would be an interesting "blind test" scenario to get everyone together who posts here and just see who gravitates toward who, and who could identify posters by name after some time around each other...those of us who are more introverted (raises hand) might tend to let the more powerful voices dominate things (I certainly tend to be one who lets other people talk...saves me the trouble). The written forum is a different animal. One, there is at least a thin veil of anonymity. I figure there are a fair number of people on this site who know each other. I have had brief PM exchanges with a couple of people here, but I have never knowingly met anyone who posts here. All I know of any of you is the persona that I see here, which may or may not be what someone is like in their day-to-day lives. There may be some of you that I'd like a whole lot better compared to your username after an hour at a tailgate or something, and the opposite could also be true. Two, some people express themselves more thoroughly via writing compared to talking. If some of the topics that are being posted here were being discussed verbally, I would probably just sit back and listen...it would take something pretty outlandish to get me to chime in. On here, people can take their time to read and decide if it's worth responding to, and can do some self-editing before responding. This is pretty much the only place I'll engage in any political discussion. I certainly don't do it at work, and usually stay away from it at home. I also freely admit to being something of a prickly pear on this forum, but I don't hold any grudges or wish anyone harm. I can't say the same about everyone else here, based on posting histories.

Hard to argue with much, if any, of this, and it's depressing as hell...the cynic in me thinks it may be too late to turn the tide, but there is a part of me that holds out hope that we as a country can figure it out. These are problems that require intelligent people to figure them out in a way that is beneficial to as large a group as possible. Those people pretty much do NOT currently take up residence in Washington, D.C. I think I need to go for a walk now to try and clear my head.

Tou Thao a murderer? Not even legally, and not under anyone with a brain's definition of murder, which excludes the jurisprudence of the state of Minnesota, because they've morphed that to and beyond the limits of credulity. Keep reaching, Stretch Armstrong. As to the judge and jury, yep, I stand by my opinion. You don't have to like it or accept it. Facepalm or thumbs-down it to your heart's content.

Did you not read the part about his attempts to keep the crowd at bay, or is your high horse of such altitude that you deem that to be wholly insufficient? As to the verdict, I'm of the opinion it's garbage. He probably couldn't have been much worse off legally if he'd have just ducktail and ran away from the scene, sadly.

...and now Oberlin's insurance providers are refusing to cover the payment to Gibson's...hmmm. Oberlin suing insurers As implied in the article, it's strange days when you find yourself even remotely sympathetic to an insurance company.

The Mitch McConnell thread, which veered into term limits, got me thinking on this: Who do you think would have been the first to truly test the unwritten "two terms and I'm out" convention for President? Prior to FDR, there were a few that made differing levels of an attempt at getting officially nominated after having served two terms (Grant, T. Roosevelt, Wilson), but they did not succeed, so I'm not including them. Keep in mind that the 22nd amendment was passed as a result of FDR being elected four times (he only served a month or two of his fourth term). I think it would have been Clinton. He was still young enough (54 in 2000), energetic enough and the impeachment (late '98-early '99) was far enough in the rear view mirror to where I don't think the Democrats would have had a problem nominating him for a third term, and I don't think he would have declined it...the opportunity to make history would have been a great lure for him, as he was a political creature from the jump. Would he have won? If you assume GWB was still his opponent, I think he very well may have. Lots of moving parts to consider (would the Republicans have nominated GWB, for one?) The multiple-term presidents between FDR and Clinton: I don't think Truman (effectively a two-termer), Eisenhower or Reagan would have been all that keen on challenging the tradition...I think they were all ready to move on. After Clinton: GWB and Obama...taken in isolation, I think both of them would have tried if able. Neither would have been considered too old at the end of their second term (62 and 55, respectively) But, for the purposes of answering my own question (who would have been the first), I think it would have been Clinton.

We're (seemingly) OK with the lower age limits to be a representative, senator, President (not to mention other items such as voting, drinking and smoking), so why not put an upper age limit for holding federal office? Or, alternatively, for Senate and HoR, limit service to 12 years at a position...two terms for Senators, six terms for HoR. If, say, a 3-termer from the HoR wanted to run for their state's U.S. Senator position, he/she could still serve up to 12 years at that position. Some provisions could be put in place for positions that may need to be filled mid-term in case of removal or death, much like a VP who completes less than half of a term when stepping in for a President (LBJ, for example) could serve two elected terms (LBJ could have run in 1968, but opted not to). I'm spitballing here, clearly, but I'm OK with some limits being put in place for duration of elected federal service.

Take it up with the Florida task force that oversees the African-American History curriculum (all six of whom are black) and, in this particular instance, College Board. Pointing this out doesn't equal some of the specious "they're saying 'hey, just learning some life skills'" offal that's being thrown out here by some of our resident leftists. Some AP courses undergo significant rewrites (World History is one), and who knows what this course's CED will have in it down the road. I would think that any teacher of this particular AP course who is worth their salt will also include that it was an exceedingly rare occurrence for a freed slave to even have a chance to make a decent life, and I figure some of them will do this rather pointedly, as is their prerogative. As for Florida's courses, benchmark clarification does not equal primary focus. How that'll be presented remains to be seen. Some of the social studies teachers may decide it's not worth the potential controversy and just not get anywhere near it. It's certainly not something that a teacher will spend a lot of time on...you typically don't devote great deals of time to benchmark clarifications. If we've got any Florida social studies teachers on this site, maybe they'll chime in.

More thoroughly stated than what is in the Florida curriculum, but the big picture idea is the same. I'll be interested to see how this AP course (new for the 2023-24 school year) goes.

He's always been a braggadocious Beltway politician who isn't nearly as bright as he thinks he is...and he's currently a shell of whatever he was when he got to Congress in 18, erm, 1973. He is, however, free to just throw bizarro statements like his most recent proclamation without any worry of being seriously questioned about it...he was obviously stuttering (did I get that one right? I think that's the deflection du jour/mois/année). Trump's perpetual dickstompery and capricious assholishness vs. Biden's tapioca pudding-brained figurehead status ("pay no attention to those people behind the curtain...") is a potential choice that should embarrass the living hell out of the entire voting populace. We used to make fun of the Soviet Union for trotting out stale old men as heads of state... joke's on us now, apparently.

Welp, you can cease and desist with your contributions to the American Cancer Society and Relay for Life...

Pretty good human-interest story all the way around on this one, although it doesn't have a storybook ending by any means...the third man was Australian Peter Norman (he finished 2nd), and he was wearing a badge in support of what Carlos and Smith were protesting. I'm guessing the badge is the circular object toward his left shoulder. He caught a lot of grief in Australia for supporting Carlos and Smith, and caught it for a long time. Norman died in 2006. Carlos and Smith were pallbearers at his funeral. Back to the USWNT, I'll be interested to see what the personality of the team is going forward, because Rapinoe appears to form the public perception of it. Their messaging is unclear at best, since we're having to hunt down what it is they might be protesting against (or if they're not really protesting anything and some of them just don't like the U.S. national anthem, and are doing what a lot of U.S. athletes do during the playing, who give the appearance of "get this over with, I'm ready to play").

Just ordered one of these stickers to put on my laptop...

Tangential to origin, but put this one into the category of something that, if uttered, was borderline heresy.

A Twinkie-Ding Dong mashup is on the way, available at your local Wal-Mart. https://www.allrecipes.com/hostess-ding-dongs-x-twinkies-mashup-7560777 Any of y'all going to run out and purchase some of these...Twing Dongs? Dinkies?

It would have taken her about two minutes of research to find out that Chapman's version was a top 10 hit, and is ranked among Rolling Stone's 100 best songs of all time. Also, Chapman has commented favorably on Combs' version. Just shoddy "journalism" from start to finish here, trying to stir s*** up where there's no basis whatsoever for it.

Team 2 has two smallish ball-dominant point guards, neither of whom was an elite shooter. In today's NBA, you've got to have at least one. From a fit standpoint, I like team 3 the best...Jokic, Dirk and Giannis would thrive not having to be the alpha dogs (Magic and Michael would more than fill those roles...heh), although each has shown themselves perfectly capable of being one. In today's era of more position-less basketball, I think this team could move guys around into different roles. Plus, as noted above, this team is big (no one under 6'6"). I'm showing my age bias here, but give me Isiah Thomas over Chris Paul for Team 1. This might be the most intense group as a whole, regardless of who I would prefer as the PG. Agree with Team 4 being the weakest defensively...lots of 146-144 games with that crew. So, to answer the question, I'd take team 3.

I'm not a huge first-run TV watcher or moviegoer, but this seems like a big deal. Actors and writers both on strike now. Live sports ftw!

Agree with golf re: addressing envelopes. A lot of my students don't have the first clue about that. I used to teach check writing back in the day, but haven't done that in a while. Untangling the wadge of clothes in the washing machine before you put them in the dryer. I would see people just throw the clump in the dryer instead of taking it apart, and then wonder why the clothes on the inside were still wet.

Frosted Mini Wheats Count Chocula Cheerios Apple Cinnamon Cheerios Wheaties With the exception of Wheaties, I have no issue eating the others straight out of the box if I've run out of milk.

Try to avoid getting sucked into the Homer vortex...it is difficult, because he's an expert noodge, but it's not worth it. I speak from experience on this. I'll add this to the discussion (poll from January '22). https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/jan_2022/covid_19_democratic_voters_support_harsh_measures_against_unvaccinated?s=09 I'm not even going to get deep into the flippity-floppedness of the CDC starting in late spring '20 (no public gatherings, but it's OK to protest in large groups...that makes sense...how?)

Seems obligatory...

People who use/used Springsteen's "Born In The U.S.A." as a patriotic anthem are probably the same ones who have/had the Police's "Every Breath You Take" played at their weddings...they see a bright, shiny title and didn't actually listen to the song. "Cheeseburger in Paradise" would be an infinitely better selection than either of those two, and it just talks about food with a beer. Hard to beat that on any day.