Announcement

Collapse
1 of 2 < >

Please update your bookmarks!!

If you use a bookmark as a way of getting to this site, please update it. The new link should include https:// before the rest of the URL. If you are having difficulty logging in, this is likely the cause.

Thanks and happy football season!
2 of 2 < >

FORUM POSTING RULES - Read before posting

Forum Rules.

(1) The guiding principle for posting in this forum is moderate yourselves.

(2) Don't write a post that attacks, impugns or denigrates another poster's character. There's an obvious difference between the language of humor and hateful, debased language. Know the difference and post accordingly.

(3) This is a Michigan sports forum. The forum welcomes posts from M's sports rivals. Talking smack, posting sass is what college sports rivalries are all about. Rules (1) and (2) above apply. If you don't want to view the posts of a rival talking smack or sassing, use the ignore feature in User Controls.

(4) This forum is about sharing thoughts, ideas and viewpoints about all sports, any number of subjects and issues, learning stuff from other posters and having fun. There are threads by subject matter within the forum for doing this. Keep the threads on point.

NB: The rules above are not intended to build a case to ban a poster. There are consequences for rule breaking as specified below. That's as far as it should go. Only the most egregious and persistent rule breaking would cause the moderators to consider a ban.

Due Process.

(1) The forum has 6 moderators. Jeff Buchanan, Jon, JD, Hannibal, Oracle, Entropy. None of them want to moderate adult posters who should know better. There may be posts that break the rules.

(2) Posters who, at the sole discretion of a moderator, break a rule will be given a warning post that will site one of the rules listed above as the reason for the deletion.

(3) If the rule breaking behavior continues, a moderator can remove an offending post and any ensuing post that whines about that action. If a moderator removes a post(s) the reason for the removal(s) will be posted with the removal notice that appears in the thread. This should be the end of it. Man up, take responsibility for breaking the rules. The forum moves on. If not, see below.

(4) A poster who has had a warning or a post(s) removed can certify a question by PM to any moderator about that action. Do not complain about the action or attempt to make your case in the forum/threads. Moderators shall do their best to address the question within 72h. At the end of 72h the majority opinion of the moderators responding will be the answer.

(5) Banning a poster for egregious and repeated rule breaking requires a unanimous vote to ban from all 6 moderators. We don't anticipate this will ever happen.
See more
See less

Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
    Avenatti (who I don’t really trust) says he’s representing a third accuser in addition to Ford and Ramirez. FWIW
    LOL. He's this administration's Official Photobomber. PBOTUS.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by iam416 View Post
      Yeah, I'm done voting for Ds. Like, ever. Those were 95% of my votes. But, I'm out. So now the only question will be whether I like the R enough to vote for him/her.
      this is gonna bitchslap the D's in the face and they don't even see it. they're gonna end up regretting this more than Kavanaugh on the bench, and it's either him or Amy Barrett, so they're still fucked.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by hack View Post

        LOL. He's this administration's Official Photobomber. PBOTUS.
        doing nothing but dragging your party through the gutter.

        Comment


        • Well,just because I'm done with the Ds doesn't mean I have to see elephants dancing everywhere. The Rs are going to get crushed in the November. Crushed. BUT, this may help them cling to the Senate, which is all they need. Then they put Barrett on.
          Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
          Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kapture1 View Post

            this is gonna bitchslap the D's in the face and they don't even see it.
            Probably not. It never really has before. It's the right move for the Dems. Everything that they have gotten in the past 50 years they have needed the judiciary for. The power of the courts is now totally unchecked. Lifetime appointments of partisans who have absolutely no accountability whatsoever for their decisions. It is wise to lay everything on the line for control of it.

            Originally posted by iam416 View Post
            Well,just because I'm done with the Ds doesn't mean I have to see elephants dancing everywhere. The Rs are going to get crushed in the November. Crushed. BUT, this may help them cling to the Senate, which is all they need. Then they put Barrett on.
            Crushed? Possibly. But about what or for what? Does the public want to abolish ICE, throw the borders open, and stunt economic growth?

            What laws is a Democrat-run House of Representatives going to pass?
            Last edited by Hannibal; September 24th, 2018, 07:20 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by iam416 View Post
              Well,just because I'm done with the Ds doesn't mean I have to see elephants dancing everywhere. The Rs are going to get crushed in the November. Crushed. BUT, this may help them cling to the Senate, which is all they need. Then they put Barrett on.
              If they drop Kavanaugh this week there's plenty of time to push through Barrett before the election.

              Comment


              • If they drop Kavanaugh this week there's plenty of time to push through Barrett before the election.
                True. And they'll do it, lame duck or not. There are no rules. But that doesn't matter to me. I'm done. If DJT is running again in 2020 I'll be joining entropy on the libertarian burn your vote train.

                Crushed? Possibly. But about what or for what? Does the public want to abolish ICE, throw the borders open, and stunt economic growth?

                What laws is a Democrat-run House of Representatives going to pass?
                Well, I think the American voter will vote against the character of the President. And I think turnout will be great for the Ds. Issue-wise, this election will prove a long-term win for the Rs (IMO). The Ds are brazen and pushing hard left. They will win short-term (and in 2020 if DJT is running), but they are going to get wiped out in 2022.

                And, of course, they'll pass no laws. It may actually help the Rs to have someone in power to oppose or someone that is gumming up the works.
                Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
                Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by iam416 View Post

                  It may actually help the Rs to have someone in power to oppose or someone that is gumming up the works.
                  You're not the first fish to bite on that line.

                  Will it help rally the base if a Dem gets elected in 2020? Yeah, maybe. But in the meantime we'll get non-repealable, poison pill legislation that will push the country further to the Left and a reopening of the borders that will make it that much harder for the Republicans to win in the future. You might even get amnesty. If that happens it doesn't matter who you vote for in the future because the permanent Democrat majority will have arrived.

                  Comment


                  • My comment was intended to be about 2018-20. It wasn't about an entirely D-controlled govt from 2020-22.
                    Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
                    Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

                    Comment


                    • Charles Cooke is almost always spot on to my ear. And he is again.

                      Judge Kavanaugh labels the New Yorker’s report a “smear, plain and simple.” He should be applauded for his restraint. I am struggling to remember reading a less responsible piece of “journalism” in a major outlet.

                      The piece starts out not with a summary of the story, but with the news that Democrats in Washington are taking it seriously — a weaselly attempt to pass the buck if I ever saw one (“People are saying!”). After that throat clearing, it is acknowledged that the person making the accusation around which the piece revolves had not mentioned it until Kavanaugh was nominated, “was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty,” and agreed to make the charge on the record only after she had spent “six days [] carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.”

                      There are no corroborating witnesses. None. Of the “dozens” of classmates the New Yorker contacted, all either failed “to respond to interview requests . . . declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party.” Indeed, we learn late in the piece that the authors could not establish that Kavanaugh was even there. “The New Yorker,” the tenth paragraph begins, “has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.” The only “evidence” provided comes from a “classmate” who was not at the party, but is certain he heard about the incident, and from “another classmate” who thinks he heard about an incident that could vaguely resemble the one alleged, but doesn’t know to whom it was done, or by whom. Or, as we would traditionally put it: The only proof provided is rumor.

                      There are a few quotes from figures who attest to the accuser’s character. And, cutting in the other direction, there is a classmate who suggest that the accuser’s accusation “may have been politically motivated.” But these contributions are so much gossip and should be treated as such. What matters is that there is no scaffolding beneath this story. As the New York Times reports:
                      The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

                      Which is to say that there is as much corroboration behind this accusation as there was behind the last one: None. In and of itself, this makes the New Yorker’s story irresponsible, albeit not out of character for Jane Mayer. But when one considers that the forces arrayed against Kavanaugh’s nomination have taken to arguing that the mere existence of an unsubstantiated allegation should be sufficient to cause a withdrawal . . . well, it looks reckless beyond all reason.

                      Which may, of course, have been exactly the point.
                      Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
                      Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by iam416 View Post
                        My comment was intended to be about 2018-20. It wasn't about an entirely D-controlled govt from 2020-22.
                        Gotcha.

                        I do think that they will pass laws and force vetoes. There are more than enough Cuckservatives in the Senate who will cross the aisle so that they can earn a little short-lived praise in the New York Times.

                        Comment


                        • I'm not sure they're interested in sensible bills that can pull in some senators.
                          Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
                          Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

                          Comment


                          • This is a good article with a historical construct applied that makes it's conclusions even more sound. It's not just about Erdogan and present politics in Turkey. IMO, the article was written to warn of the dangers of the Trump presidency. Hack, you'll enjoy this article.

                            https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ongman/570514/
                            On Harbaugh's expectations for M football in 2015 (NFL NETWORK): �We'd rather be about it than talk about it."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by iam416 View Post
                              I'm not sure they're interested in sensible bills that can pull in some senators.
                              You might be right.

                              The Legislative branch of government has been largely neutered at this point. The judiciary can override anything that they do with the right court case and now the President governs by executive order and appointments to government departments who have been given broad regulatory powers (e.g. the EPA has more power to affect the economy than Congress).

                              Comment


                              • Wait, hold on a sec...Geraldo lives in Cleveland now and will have a radio show on WTAM???

                                When will Cleveland catch a break???

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X