ewsieg

A senator/rep looking like an idiot during their questioning of a witness? Tubberville obviously is an exception as I've never heard any other senator/rep ask stupid questions before.

From someone who recently switched from Outlook to Gmail at work, I absolutely believe this is happening along with the suppression of mails from your boss, calendar invites, peers, etc. And if you don't catch it immediately and have to search for it....forget about it.

20 bucks your doctor is following Oz because she was tired of getting blindsided by something stupid he said on his 'doctors' show and used it to be prepared to handle questions from her patients.

Vindman is right to be upset at Esper for holding this info for personal gain, but while infuriating, we definitely should care about it and need everyone in that administration to come out with their stories.

So, back to serious, but this does bring up a question that I honestly think isn't just something the right asks. My wife and I wanted our kids and let's say she was robbed and assaulted and we lost our baby over it, I know personally I would want murder charges. Is that right? I don't know. I know there are some states that do charge like that though. Sounds like Alabama is one of them. If the pregnant mother was the one committing the felony, from a law stance, I think it opens up to the fact that she would be responsible. I can only assume she wanted to have this baby and likely any charge pales in comparison to what she is already going through, so i'm not going to say it serves the greater good of the community, but it doesn't seem as far fetched as Reason makes it out to be IMO.

Definitely a joke, unless we can get the right messenger to make it. I mean, Trump says this and within months of Roe v Wade being overturned, the GOP would be pushing through a bill that effectively subsidizes and ensures access to abortion across the entire country, just because Trumpee's would look at it as 'owning the libs'.

There are solutions to this folks, i'm not sure why everyone thinks it's a big deal. A compromise can be reached, but it'll take some blinders. For my left leaning friends here. (Right leaning, move to the next paragraph without reading this) Publicly say abortion isn't a good thing, you don't even have to say bad, just say it's not a good thing, no one wants it, etc. Then accept a 'penalty' against the person that gets the procedure. Because it's not desired, it needs to be well regulated, like Pot. You have to go to a federal approved site to have it done, that'll ensure you pay the penalty. In looking it up, it says the average abortion is $750 but less in some states, let's just say $500 is the cost of the 'fine'. We're actually subsidizing it, but shush, be quiet. Please stop reading now. Hey my right leaning friends. We all know abortion is really bad, but c'mon, who gets abortions? Yeah, you're right, people that go around having sex or allowing themselves to get raped or molested. Do we really want those people being mom's? So let's have a federal legal ban on abortion but for those that are going to do it anyway, like those stupid hippies smoking their 'reefer', we'll punish them with a tax penalty of $500 bucks everytime they do it. That'll show them and help them lead life without hopping into bed outside of marriage (to a man of course, amirite?!?!?) Good God fearing women would never break the law, so this will help save them from a horrible sin that the devil currently tempts them with. Plus all the tax money we get out of this ,we can put towards cops to protect us from those babies that liberals end up not aborting due to this.

I know you've been trained to expect false flags, but don't go crazy into thinking every possible thing that happens is a false flag. My guess is we have a slew of legitimate reasons for some of the things we've seen out of Russia, some of which could possibly be false flags.

I'm certainly no Lions slappy, but I do always get excited heading into the draft and usually spend the following week trying to convince myself that I should be happy about the draft. This one is different for me, which scares me. I don't want to start believing Holmes is building something good here because when it all falls apart, that would just means it hurts more. Possibly Jacksonville forced us into this position, but I feel like we got a guy that could be in pro-bowl consideration every year and has an incredibly high floor. With Williams, i'm not that concerned about the ACL, seems like that's becoming the equivalent of Tommy John in baseball, where players can come back just as good, if not better. Paschal, i'm just looking at the production we got out of Flowers. Sounds like he can be a 3 down guy that is a better on the run side than the pass side, but overall, am I out of line to say he might be wash for Flowers as soon as his first year? James Mitchell - Another ACL guy, but decent hands and can block. Guess i'm a little more leery of a big guy with an ACL, but again it doesn't appear to be as bad of an injury as it once was. Kerby Joseph / Malcolm Rodriquez - I love what i'm reading about these guys, but the fact they are undersized is concerning. Sounds like Kerby has the speed to make up for his size. Malcolm is the type of guy that I think the fans of Detroit will love if he can find a way to contribute to this team. I saw one mockup that had Malcolm as the 109th best prospect in this draft. I feel like these guys can contribute, but the defense needs to be setup in a way to account for their limitations.

Yes, I remember Arab Spring.

Another one of those 'big if true' things. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10770541/Putin-cancer-operation-near-future-hand-power-hardline-ex-KGB-chief.html If there has been talks about going against Putin, they might see this as an oppurtunity.

Based on the absolute shock i'm seeing on twitter, I suspect this may be the case.

Not really sure I see what it stated in the article as evidence he might be backing out as all that convincing. He didn't join the board as he wanted to go for full ownership. While he definitely could throw away a billion dollars and be fine, I also doubt he would put that amount on the line just to balk a few days later.

Silver lining for the current Twitter employees is that the current board and CEO didn't appear to know how to run it either so it probably won't get worse. Musk reminds me of a mixture of Jobs and Wozniak. He may not be able to outsell Jobs or out brain Wozniak, but he's strong in both suits. Tesla definitely reminds me of a young Apple corporation. They had some niche things they could do well, but they were lucky to have an extremely dedicated customer base. I still remember an old boss that would claim the only fix action on a mac was to reboot it. If that didn't work, his follow up would be to ask how old it was and if it was over 3 years old "oh wow, yeah, that's your problem. You need to get another one". Tesla is likely going to correct a lot of those issues before most people move to e-vehicles. If you want to break down the last few iphones to a comparable galaxy, the galaxy will win each time, but for the vast majority of folks and what they use their phones for, there is no considerable difference. This is the key for Tesla, to get to that point by the time the majority of folks are buying e-vehicles, otherwise the Big 3, Honda, and Toyota are going to knock them down considerably.

Exactly, who would have thought that policy you would have expected out of a progressive liberal candidate years before would be so detrimental.

Dem's aren't putting up a candidate to run against Mike Lee. Great move by them. https://www.businessinsider.com/utah-democrats-support-evan-mcmullin-independent-senate-mike-lee-2022-4

I disagree with nothing you have stated here, but you're responding based on what you know now, not what was happening at the time this reporter apparently told another reporter that there was no comparison between the economic plans of the two 2016 candidates. Hillary did not have any grand plan either. The obvious differences, Hillary probably said she would raise taxes on the wealthy where Trump said everyone needed a tax cut. They probably both said investment in energy was needed, where Hillary pushed for more green energy and Trump said we should continue to drill. Hillary was basically running a status quo campaign as she was riding the coattails of Obama. So while she probably said 'infrastructure' and 'jobs', I don't remember any specifics in what she'd do outside of 'make everything better'.

Certainly didn't help.

#fakebalance - that's ironic. He's showing his bias in claiming 'both sides'. Bullshit that Hillary's plan was 'comprehensive'. Here is the likely truth on both plans - they likely talked about many of the same things and talked at a very high level on how they would improve each of those issues. Democrats read Trump's and inferred everything they don't like about the opposition into those high level categories and scoffed that it was fluff. Republicans did the same thing with Hillary's.

I didn't know either Chuck Berry or Little Richard were from Cleveland. Joking aside, I think I remember reading a DJ from Cleveland was the first to term some R&B as Rock and Roll to try and get it into more of a white audience.

You want to see Media bias, go right now and look up Judge Mizelle. I have yet to see anything in print yet discussing the reasoning behind her decision. CNN and others only have background information on her, pointing out she was appointed by Trump and didn't have a favorable review from the ABA due to limited experience. Others are portraying her as a hero.

wait, is this for real?!?!

Finland with a show of force.

Be careful calling a few percent 'cuts' as defund the police. Local government has been strapped for cash for years for various reasons and have had to make cuts across the board. Add into unions wanting to raises for their members. They start taking into cost of living and inflation and point out how an increase to funding still is a net decrease when those factors are put into play. Republicans scoff at this stuff, until they see they adopt the same language to push their side of the 'defund the police' narrative.

Democrats get hurt on the 'defund the police' because local politicians in some places have been able to defund police departments. Additionally, the State/Federal Dem politicians have tried to sit on a fence and hope no one looks at them which has helped continue to push the narrative that the dems are defunding the police. If they do get questioned that's when you see them refuse to answer the question, but instead start out a response like "Well first, you need to understand what 'defund the police' actually means." As Whitmer walked with BLM, she was working behind the scenes to increase funding and at least locally within Michigan, the push for Whitmer to do this was from some of your bigger cities in Michigan, also run by dems. As a whole, this is norm within the Dem party right now rather than the handful of cities that have had city boards defund the police.