chasfh

Yeah, this one won’t end well, either.

That’s fine, you don’t have to believe his direct quote here actually happened. I can’t confirm that Paul Vallas is fire, but he sure is a lot of smoke. Chicago is chartered to have a strong council and a weak mayor, although it has evolved across the decades into a strong mayor-weak council system in practice, in part because they can draw up the budget. Vallas also has the endorsement of the cop union, which to me is very different from being pro-safety. It suggests that he is going to try to redirect dollars from social services to recruiting thousands of fresh cops, which sounds good until they start dropping the standards so they can get more dues-paying FOP members on board quickly and easily. Many head crackers had fled the force after all the pressure departments across the country were receiving due to public pressure after the rash of incidents the past few years. It now looks like Vallas wants to go back, and Catanzara could not be more thrilled. Looks like interesting times the next six weeks here in Big Shoulders.

He is establishing what the line should be for future fundraising and marketing efforts.

Note how Hawley says he wants it at $25 so they add credibility to their future claim to the American people they forced a corrupt Democrat pharma company to act in the interests of America’s heartland voters.

Woke pharma company clearly doesn’t want America to be made great again.

Who is Marty Malarkey and why should I care what he has to say about this?

Helping others is socialist. Unless it’s helping to put up a neighbor’s barn. Anything else is socialist. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, cowboy. #Murica

Paul Vallas is a newly-minted cop-sniffer who is thisclose to going full MAGA. He has had to run ads defending the idea he is still a Democrat. I can see Fox News falling all over themselves over the next six weeks talking him up as The Great White Hope of Chicago.

Bottom line: maintaining complex infrastructure for safety is expensive and cuts into profits, thus reducing the number and size of yachts the executives can own. It’s the #1 reason they want to prevent government regulation.

Someone weak and powerless like Boebert is exactly the perfect candidate to act out like that and try to make any impact they can. Powerful people don’t need to do that.

Fox was routinely lying before 2008, too. “Fair and balanced”, my ass.

Say no to making America Florida.

He must reeeeeeally wanna kill it.

Exactly what I was thinking as well. Although I gotta believe Raskin and his staff spent some amount of time gaming out the impact of “Banana Republican Party” versus “Banana Republic Party” before he delivered this choice slap on the floor. But yeah, I agree, “Banana Republic Party” works on more levels.

Is it weird that I’m a little surprised that Boebert or someone else on that side didn’t start shouting down Raskin as he was mid-sentence during his smackdown? Allowing the other guy to say his entire piece seems to be an increasingly uncommon act of civility, so at some point soon the interrupting and shouting down is gonna start happening, isn’t it?

I think it was this, and I think it was that.

I think twenty seconds max between pitches will be plenty enough time to maintain tension and emotion in close and late games with runners on.

Also, no way Trump was ever going to let any [deleted] tell him what to do.

Oh, doink! Totally misread that!

Their ultimate goal is to share ruling power with a single-party fascist Christian Congress at the behest of an iron-handed autocrat. Not Trump, but someone equally Trumpy but with brains. if they get far enough, at some point they will want to drive out the Court's remaining liberals, preferably in shame and ignominy by their definition, and get 9-0 unanimity. I don't know if they'll get it, but that's what at least five of them would like to see.

Quick, find any one Democrat who has ever lied about any one of their credentials so we can both sides this and move on to the important Congressional business of gaming out secession options.

Everything I wrote that you snipped out of the quote pretty much lays out what the limits are in a case like this. This is definitely not a case of thought-policing, and you do acknowledge as much. It is a case of a newspaper protecting itself from being associated from someone specifically trading on that association to blowtorch society at large with his inflammatory views. The Plain Dealer had a right to shit-can him, and I believe they were right to. And the next person who does this same thing and gets shit-canned will deserve it, too. I don't think this is the right example to clutch our pearls about how far will newspapers go to quash whatever, since by bringing that up now in relation to this incident, you are (inadvertently, I hope) casting aspersions on the Plain Dealer's decision.

Ask your parents. I'm sure they remember. Hey, weren't you born in the 60s? 😁

Scott Adams has been a star for a couple of decades now, so of course he believes be deserves preferential treatment and that normal workplace rules don’t apply to him. Stars have always believed that, and extreme cases like this aside, they’ve always gotten away with it, too. The flip side about stars, though, is that they are never truly on their own time. So when they lip off in public, the consequences also accrue to the people and organizations they are closely associated with, which in this case is the newspapers in which Adams runs. The Plain Dealer was the only place the folks in Cleveland could see his work. When they think of Dilbert, they think of the Plain Dealer, so when Adams goes off like this, his actions are associated with the Plain Dealer as well. In such a case, they are practically obliged to let Adams go. It’s the same thing if a player lips off in public, even during the offseason—he is associated with the team he’s on, so they’re going to bear the brunt of criticism, too, so they have every right to sanction him within bounds as they see fit. That’s something most of us don’t have to worry about when we ourselves lip off in places like this. Yup, it’s totally not fair. The last thing here is that Scott Adams also wasn’t really on his own time, anyway. He was trading on the fame he gained through his association with the newspapers to host a live stream in which he could spout off his noxious views in the first place. He wasn’t doing this on his free time—he was still working, making income due to his associated fame, which he couldn’t have done so prominently had he not acquired that fame through the newspapers he was still being featured in. Even if the papers don’t share in the revenue he generates from it, they still bear the brunt of the externalities his bad behavior generates, anyway. Any newspaper dumping him because of this is totally in the right.