CoffeeTiger

It's basically probation. Likely has a probation officer he reports to sometimes and has to pay a monthly restitution amount to the victim.

He should go for it. Forest Bedford is similar to Robert E Lee in that they are held in high regard by the Confederate fans of today as they were one of the few Confederate leaders who weren't all in on slavery/racism, and weren't just completely horrible people. While commendable, it Doesn't make them worthy of special honors or commendations

former MAGA Republican politician and ordained Southern Baptist minister is acting like a 'liberal'...who knew. https://1819news.com/news/item/no-jail-time-for-former-state-rep-will-dismukes-after-felony-theft-of-property-conviction Anyway, doesn't seem like the judge listened to the sisters as Will got a slap on the wrist.

😭

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2024/05/01/ea-sports-college-football-25-announcers/73518436007/ Probably multiple sets of announcing teams will be in the games. EA indicates a full reveal of the game will be coming in a few weeks.

https://apnews.com/general-news-381b83c59b0d1953c4040d3b3ee22c64 And yet, we have commemorations and celebrations of Nathan Bedford Forrest being put on by Christian Conservative groups and attended by Republican politicians. A little interesting don't you think?

Yeah...that's crazy.... So anyway...on a completely, absolutely unrelated topic, is your company hiring by any chance?

Nothing is going to change until moderates start voting in numbers at least equivalent to the extremes of both parties. That doesn't have a chance of happening unless election/voting reform is done to make voting easier, more encourages, or to give moderates a boost. The issue is that both parties like the way the voting system works for the most part because at this point most of America has been gerrymandered into areas that are guaranteed to vote either Republican or Democrat in all elections all the time. There is 0 incentive for politicians to pass election laws that may have a chance of helping the other party (even moderates of the other party) to possibly win future elections, or of weakening their own power base. Take Alabama for example. Republicans in Alabama are VEHIMENTLY opposed to ANY election reform or changes that could loosen the Republican parties grip on the state in any way, which ALL the proposed voting reform in the OP's article and linked articles could do. Examples include straight party voting where you check one tick mark on a ballot to automatically vote for ALL the candidates of one party on the ballot automatically. You don't even have to bother looking at names or knowing who is running. You just either vote all R or all D. This makes no sense and doesn't result in qualified or competent people being elected because all that matters is the R or D by their name, but because a majority of straight party voting tickets lean Republican, GOP law makers will never agree to change it. Alabama, like many other Republican states, are also moving to make it literally ILLEGAL to have 'ranked choice voting' reform happen in the state. They say they are making it illegal because they think voters are too dumb to understand it and it would confuse people, but Again, the real reason is because they see it as a way that Democrats could start getting wins in elections through it or moderate Republicans who don't completely agree with the AL GOP agenda might start poking through the cracks. So ultimatelyYES I completely agree that we need moderates to vote more and to win more elections..100%...the problem is that so far nobody has been able to offer up any actual solution or fix that is actually realistic or capable of being accomplished in our current system. As per the article, moderates have made up a large portion of the American electorate for DECADES and DECADES...yet the power and influence of Moderates have only ever decreased and they are as politically impotent as they've ever been. Nobody seems to really know how to change or reverse this.

If Tim Scott was gay then, yes that would have affected the enthusiasm and support that a large number of evangelicals would have for him. maybe it wouldn’t for you or for the people you know, but for many it would. It doesn’t mean they vote for Biden, it could mean choosing not to vote at all or lead to less donations on the campaign trail.

Some Republicans were wary of Scott's campaign for President because they were afraid he was gay man, as he was near 60 year old, perpetually single, and never married, and they were afraid that him being caught with a man or coming out as gay could hurt his support with the Evangelical base. Then Tim Scott suddenly pulls a woman from of his hat out of nowhere, and announces that they are getting married. I personally do believe Scott's story that he's just a very private, introverted man who just never wanted to publicly talk about his relationships, but it is kind of funny that he suddenly comes out fiancé right as him not being married was becoming a talking point in national circles.

Because it got mentioned, I went and read through a couple of postings on the TigerDroppings politics forum and man....that place is something else. And I don't mean that in a good way. lol

Your entire post doesn't really make much sense to me. Has there ever been a time in US history where you think hypothetical college students were perfectly principled and had no contradictory belief's about the Constitution or how rights apply to different groups of people? The United States constitution was a revolutionary document, idea, and form of government, but throughout our nations history it's kind of been an unreachable 'ideal' for how our nation should run and what rights people have that in practice has never been equally practiced or applied to all groups of people races, religions, or political ideologies. The US has always had groups of people who's rights were considered more important and better protected than others. Also, just about every Presidential administration has violated the word and letter of the Constitution in some ways. I'm not really buying your argument that Trump and right wing populism today is the reaction to/fault of contradictory liberal college students and because Obama stretched the rules to get people cheap insurance, unpolluted water, and fair internet speeds.

A lot of people give opinions as their job or for a living. Ironically, Most of Davis's working career was spent as a Liberal Arts University professor. A job that many Conservatives look down on and consider to be for people who can't 'make it' in the real world.

What makes Victor Hansen Davis qualified to determine this?

Nike has been making MLBs uniforms since 2019. This year they did a whole redesign for some reason on the uniforms, changing just about everything about them, and it seems to have backfired on them. I don't think this has any impact on the college athletic equipment or merchandise from Nike

https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberal-democracy Liberal democracy, a form of democracy in which the power of government is limited, and the freedom and rights of individuals are protected, by constitutionally established norms and institutions. Like the broader concept of democracy, liberal democracy is what the Scottish philosopher and political scientist W.B. Gallie (1912–98) called an essentially contested concept, about which no final consensus can exist. Nonetheless, the following underlying principles are broadly recognized as fundamental to liberal democracy: pluralism and toleration (that is, the dispersal of political power among a variety of interest groups and the acceptance of conflicting political viewpoints or priorities between groups); the resolution of political disagreements, where possible, within a constitutional framework and through the rule of law; the separation of powers (including the operation of an independent judiciary); and the protection of individual civil rights. The origins of liberal democracy can be traced in part to a series of historical events and theories circumscribing the role of the state and limiting its powers, in tandem with the development of the idea of individual rights. Liberal democracy in the West is generally thought to have originated in the European Enlightenment and the American and French revolutions of the late 18th century—although some of its foundational principles, such as limited government, harken back to earlier events, such as the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215.

Interesting part of the story is how it seems like their head coach, Trent Dilfer, seemed to be a leading force in introducing the players and encouraging them to participate in this association.

The vibes:

Salty thinks I hate Christians, but I really, honestly don’t. A large majority of my family and acquaintances are evangelical Christians and I get along with them all perfectly fine. I also occasionally go to Church with them and have no issues participating in the services, putting in the collection play, fellowshipping, ect. I just may sometimes sound very anti-religion on here because this forum is honestly the only place in my life that I’m fully honest about my current disbelief in religion, and is also one of the few places that I feel like I can have more or less free discourse and discussion about religion. I like the back and forth. To everyone else in my life I am either still a devout Evangelical, or I just don’t talk about religion much.

You tickle my pickle, Salty!

True. violence and laws/government enforcement shouldn't be used to stop or prevent people from freely practicing the religion they choose. certain Religious beliefs do sometimes have to be imposed on for the overall betterment of society and adherence to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Sometimes peoples Religious beliefs violate the rights of other people around them and that can't be accepted in a legal sense. For example, gay marriage. A lot of people believed it was a violation of their religion or beliefs for the nation they live in to allow legal gay marriages. Back in early America, many slaveholders (like most of the population in general) were Christians, and many especially in the South believed that owning human slaves was condoned by their religion and was actually beneficial to society as it resulted in millions of Africans being exposed to Christianity and possible 'salvation' through the American/European slave trade. Some religious people believe that any kind of vaccine is against their religion, but in most cases they must be vaccinated against some of the most horrific diseases as too many unvaccinated would result in a 'rebirth' of these suppressed diseases that could then start spreading again and negatively impact society. Since religion can be anything and religious people can believe in literally ANYTHING...nobody can guarantee that laws will never violate anyone's religious beliefs or convictions.

Everyone on this forum is similar in that we all believe that 99.9% of all the Gods and Religions that have existed throughout human history have been man made creations. Some of us just take that belief 0.1% further than others. but seriously, if you want to believe in God or the Bible then obviously you wouldn't want to listen to me or Homer. Believe whatever you want to believe as long as you don't try to impose it on others through force, violence, or politics/laws.

Right. That's essentially what my 'diatribe' was saying. God is and can be whatever any individual person thinks he is or wants him to be.

I strongly respect Churches who use the money they collect in real charity efforts. Churches do a lot of good work out there. It's also true that a lot of these charitable donations given by Christians are used to construct large, grand Church building complexes, pay their staff, and sometimes languish in church saves/investment accounts.