The Frankish Reich

There actually is an irrational hatred of cyclists in some people. I bike to work in good weather. It's about a half hour each way. I get in an hour total of a workout during what otherwise would be a sedentary car commute while enjoying some beautiful summer/spring/fall scenery. Most drivers are fine with sharing the road. I get a lot of "go ahead" waves from people who get that stopping/starting on a bike is a lot tougher than in a car. But some are just a-holes. In Colorado it is legal for a cyclist to stop briefly at a red light, check for traffic, and then go. I get people yelling out of windows at me, like it bothers them that they have to wait out the light while I can just treat it like a stop sign. The reason we do this: we want to get the hell out of your way. If I'm on the shoulder next to a line of cars and I can just go before the light turns, I can avoid that uncertainty about how to space yourself in a line of cars. They can see me, I know where they are, I won't get in their way, they won't run into me by making a sudden right turn into a street or a driveway, etc. So is there a "hatred of bikers?" Yes, among some people. Go ahead and hate on the spandexed groups who take a perverse joy in causing traffic jams. But that's not me or most cyclists - just let me get the hell outta your way and we can both arrive safely.

Oh, I've tried to get people to think about such things in this thread, the point at which the state should be allowed to override parental decisions. Take a look. You'll see no attempt by the "it's a transurrection!" posters to think that through.

That will be some railroad. He should put Gavin Newsom in charge of the project.

And this is from the man who was at one time on the same offense as Kyle Orton?

So there's no pee tape. Agreed. Where's the "person votes in 28 separate voting booths, casting 7 ballots in each one" tape? Do you agree there's no such thing?

I asked a specific question: where is the video Trump referred to in his CNN Town Hall? The one where voters are voting in 28 different voting booths, casting 7 ballots each time? No "straw man" unless that's the new term for the Orange Man. (You mean it doesn't exist, but still you believe?)

A telling choice of words. You don't believe that election machines were rigged or hacked. You presumably don't believe this because there was no evidence to support it, and because, in fact, the claim was litigated right up to the trial date, and the evidence brought forward in discovery simply failed to support any such belief. You believe that the election was "rigged" because: - "rigged" is necessarily an amorphous term, meaning whatever you want it to mean - you simply can't believe (as apparently Trump can't believe, or pretends that he can't believe) that he lost to this 80 year old who didn't hold glorious campaign rallies like Trump, and besides, pretty much everyone you know voted for Trump. There is an arguable point about voter fraud and mail-in/drop-off ballots aiding Biden more than Trump, but again ... no proof of that. It's a belief, or more accurately a feeling. So on that point, quote this from Trump's CNN Town Hall: TRUMP: We have elections that were horrible. If you look at what happened in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, if you look at what happened in Detroit, Michigan, if you look at what happened in Atlanta, millions of votes, and all you have to do is take a look at government cameras. You will see them, people going to 28 different voting booths to vote, to put in seven ballots apiece. I mean, and they’re all on camera. So I ask: show me the evidence of this. Apparently there is video evidence of people "going to 28 different voting booths to vote, to put in seven ballots apiece." Seems pretty damning. Trump mentioned it in his Town Hall after a year and a half of his (and his supporters') intensive investigation. Show me the evidence. (Not conjecture about how they could have done this, or how some clerk in Atlanta moved a box containing ballots around ... evidence of THIS specific example of clear voter fraud.) One person, 28 different "voting booths," 7 ballots in each one. Show me. EDIT: John 20:29.

You haven't addressed the lack of internal logic in Tucker's Ep. 3 that I pointed out. You've instead reverted to the old conspiracy theories: they were out to get JFK, they are out to get Trump. Trust no one. X files crap. I pointed out that Tucker makes various unsupported assumptions: We overclassify, most classified documents don't really include information that would be gravely damaging to national security, hence we can assume that the classified documents "found" in Trump's Private Collection would not be gravely damaging to national security, hence this prosecution isn't based on the purpose of the Espionage Act (protection of national security information), hence we may assume it is being done for political reasons only. You have been seduced by Tucker's wiles. A man crush is not an argument. Here we go again. Because, as Trump says, "everybody knows." They just know. No evidence, they just know. His own AG says there's no evidence, but still ... they just know.

Oh, sorry. It isn't just Oliver Stone. It's also a former heroin addict British comedian attempting to resurrect a career by doing righty conspiracy commentary. It's also a crackpot nephew of JFK who thinks Sirhan Sirhan - ON VIDEO, SHOOTING HIS FATHER - isn't the "real assassin." And now it's Tucker Carlson, a man who "hates Trump passionately," attempting to salvage his reputation by kissing Trump ass for 10 minutes at a time, three times a week. And of course it's Trump, the biggest ass kisser of all time, sucking up to Clintons and every other evil deep stater for years, until suddenly becoming the 21st century Lyndon LaRouche. EDIT: what about the UFOs? When will we be hearing about that conspiracy? You may not be Q Anon, but you speak with a heavy Q Anon accent

Well, o.k. then, Oliver Stone.

Fret? I don't think that word means what you think it means. I am not "worried or anxious" about Tucker's shtick. I am pointing out that it follows a formula that appeals to people who aren't interested in (or lack the capacity to) analyzing the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind it. And citing a comedian saying "c'mon, surely some conspiracy theories are true!" isn't the most compelling rebuttal ...

Well, no. Or not to the same extent. The mainstream media has its issues. And the second Twitter thing I picked on here—anecdote as somehow meaningful without further research—is one of them. But the first one — a preposterous take on how federal enforcement works — would thankfully never make it past an editor at the NYT, Wash Post, WSJ. See what I said there? An editor. That’s the difference.

Just to point out some particularly stupid takes people have reposted here. This one is so jarringly dumb that I can't imagine even a wingnut "news" source posting it. "The National Archives has no enforcement authority, so how did this wind up as a DOJ case?" Well, it wound up as a DOJ case BECAUSE THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES HAS NO INDEPENDENT PROSECUTION OR ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY. That is precisely why the DOJ is called "the nation's law firm." Government agencies refer matters for civil/criminal enforcement to DOJ all the time. That's what DOJ does. Maybe think a little bit before posting those "ooh, look, they're really out on a limb here" comments? Another one, too pointless to bother linking to (again; you can see it in the postings here if you want to make yourself just a bit stupider): "My (presumably) old father has never been a registered member of a political party, but now the Democrats' behavior has finally made him register as a Republican." Look at this: https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx And tell me whether there's any discernible trend toward one party or the other over the last couple years. It fluctuates within a few percentage points. The poster (and reposter) may find daddy's registration to be an incredibly pivotal and telling event. It isn't. So there you have it: Twitter makes you dumber. First through a gross misunderstanding (deliberate? ignorance?) of how federal law enforcement works. Second through meaningless anecdote.

Species-ist. Groundhogs are important to me.

Just make sure Diggs is limited to one hotel suite. And that Josh only goes to bars with male bartenders. You know, to facilitate team bonding.

The NBA isn't the NFL, but there's still something about what happened in the NBA playoffs this year: the two longest-tenured coaches in the league squared off in the finals. Continuity matters. Having a consistent plan matters. Even if the Bills fail to advance this year (and based on prior years, "advance" really means "makes the Super Bowl"), it would be a mistake to fire Beane and/or McDermott. But history suggests that would probably be the outcome, since coaches typically don't get multiple chances to make that next step forward.

What I'm seeing is Teddy wants to be Attorney General. Or maybe even VP.

I am just stunned that: 1. I read most of this, at least from page 60 on 2. I learned more gossip about Josh's and Stef's sex lives in a couple hours than I have any right to know. I will never look at them the same way again. The sex maniac and the two girls in different hotel rooms at the same time player.

Well, Josh is 27, so if I remember correctly (it's all a blur!) I think I may have done some of these things at that age ... Diggs is 29, and I think I remember that age pretty well, so I guess 28 was when I got my act together and started trying to create a sustainable work and home life.

OK, I watched this one. Season 1, Episode 3 I guess we'll call it. And we can see what Tucker does here. It's his formula. - Begins with some valid points: we over-classify documents in the federal government. Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the President, and are expected to advance the President's agenda (unspoken assumption: provided that agenda is lawful/constitutional) - Moves into a specific villain. Here, Mike Pompeo. Criticizes him for being all obsequious and fawning in person to Trump, but being something of a deep state manipulator behind the scenes. Suggests Pompeo didn't deliver on the Loyalty test. (Doesn't mention that he too privately harbored the same contempt for Trump as he suggests Pompeo did) - Then makes a completely unwarranted leap: because we classify too much, most classified violations involve stuff that really isn't that important and probably shouldn't have been classified at all since there really is no risk to national security. Suggests--without evidence of what the particular classified involved in Trump's case--that this is the kind of "could embarrass someone but doesn't really impact national security" stuff. - Then comes the conspiracy theory. In fact, the reason too much government information is classified isn't because people are overly cautious or panic-prone ("OMG, I can't be the Intel officer responsible for letting out a report that went viral and damaged relationships with our allies or even outed a confidential informant!"), but rather because it is a mechanism to hide ordinary workings of the government from "the people," who, if they knew what was really going on, would openly rebel against their government. So there it is. A good point or two (we overclassify! some of our high government appointees seem more interested in pumping up their own resumes than in serving their president!!), an unwarranted assumption flowing from those points (the stuff Trump kept therefore is statistically likely to be a nothingburger, as if Trump selectively said "take the hundred most innocuous classified documents to Mar-a-Lago, and while you're at it get me a Diet Coke"), and then a big conspiracy theory to Explain What It Really Means and Why Our Country Has Gone to Hell in a Handbasket.

Yep. Bigger still! Just because the NYC market is about 50 times bigger than ours.

I guess I should've said "Adam Thielen in his prime was better than Diggs has been in his prime." That would be a more controversial opinion in these parts?

True. Something like this happens on the Jets or Giants, it blows up waaaay beyond what we'll see here.

This isn't the NBA where those big expiring contracts (not that these are expiring) have trade value.

This part - where Josh was and how late he was out the night before the game - should be easy to find out. Does anyone know the verifiable facts on that point? These are young good looking guys with tons and tons of money. They are a lot closer in age and maturity to those 16 year old girls than they are to many (most?) of us here.