GroveDiesel

Google news feed, CNN.com, Drudgereport, some Twitter follows, and for local news the local network affiliate sites for NBC and CBS. Feel like I get a good broad range of news coverage with those sources. Have been thinking about adding in some BBC because they do better international coverage.

I agree 100%. I posted the poll looking for some illumination and found myself way more surprised than I thought possible. Makes me even more glad that I asked. In the nicest way possible, y’all are nuts!

Would make sense. Can’t imagine Disney really is onboard anymore with making shooting guns fun (ray guns fine, realistic-ish guns nah).

I’ll be totally honest, I didn’t include it as an option because that possibility didn’t even occur to me as a possibility and honestly I’m shocked that not only has that been mentioned quite a few times now, but by guys that I really think have good heads in their shoulders.

For whatever reason (totally off topic I know), but this put the question in my mind of how much has The Pill affected women’s libidos? We know that it can have a negative effect on libido though it’s not often talked about. There’s a lot of joking about married women having low libidos, but what if a big part of that has been the fairly universal usage of The Pill?

Trying to get an idea of why most people post in the political forum as I think that a) it would be interesting just to know and b) would inform (at least for me) in what manner I may choose to participate. Vote for whichever option best describes you and If voting Other, please reply here with your reason.

The team that made BC2 is long gone so even if it gets made I don’t see any reason to believe it would capture any of that magic.

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems weird that instead of addressing it personally, you reported it to HR, not because you were offended, but because you thought other people might be offended. I guess that’s the world we live in now though. 20+ people on and email and if you’d don’t report something that someone COULD take offense at, if someone DOES take offense and you didn’t say anything, suddenly you’re guilty by association.

I’m not the one that asked “how many times have we seen people in general - or liberal/lefts even - breaking the rules or law and there be consequences and then people start up on how unfair it was the person had to deal with those consequences”. I’m not sure why you’re asking me whether or not I can think of any when you can’t seem to think of any. And you’re still dodging my other question it seems.

You’re partially correct. I would be happy to see actual examples that fit what you said was happening. But more than that, I’m asking for some specifics, some analysis from you. I’m looking for you to clarify what type of liberals you were referring to. It’s helpful in an actual discussion to be as clear and precise as possible instead of using broad terms with little context or meaning. And my second question seems pretty basic and should be easy to answer, right? Should people have to deal with the consequences of their choices? Easy yes or no question. I don’t think it’s a trick question or anything.

Yup. The idea that Snyder was just a hands off guy who had no idea what was going on is laughable. He settled a sexual harassment lawsuit in 2009 for $1.6M. He has been known as being incredibly meddlesome as an owner. And you can bet there are plenty of other owners with a lot to hide. There are some owners that used to be extremely opinionated and in the news a lot and a number of them seem to have faded a bit the last few years. Gotta wonder if there have been other things uncovered and those owners advised to quietly fade into the background.

Is there a list of who is “liberal” and who is “conservative” I should be referring to somewhere so that I know exactly which position on each issue to assign to each poster here?

We already know from the complaints made that kicked this whole thing off that Gruden wasn’t the worst. Link “What the cheerleaders didn’t know was that another video, intended strictly for private use, would be produced using footage from that same shoot. Set to classic rock, the 10-minute unofficial video featured moments when nipples were inadvertently exposed as the women shifted positions or adjusted props. The lewd outtakes were what Larry Michael, then the team’s lead broadcaster and a senior vice president, referred to as “the good bits” or “the good parts,” according to Brad Baker, a former member of Michael’s staff. Baker said in an interview that he was present when Michael told staffers to make the video for team owner Daniel Snyder.” ”Twenty-five women — most of them speaking on the condition of anonymity because of nondisclosure agreements or fear of reprisal — told The Post that they experienced sexual harassment while working for the team. They described male bosses, colleagues and players commenting on their bodies and clothing, incorporating sexual innuendos into workplace conversation and making unwanted advances in person or via emails, text messages and social media. Many said they were motivated to speak out because they were angered by Snyder’s comments after The Post report last month that detailed allegations from another 17 women, which they read as an attempt to distance himself from the workplace culture described.” ”Former cheerleader Tiffany Bacon Scourby said Snyder approached her at a 2004 charity event at which the cheerleaders were performing and suggested she join his close friend in a hotel room so they “could get to know each other better.”

The latest wrinkle is pulling Adam Schefter in. In yet another leaked email, Schefter wrote to Washington executive Bruce Allen sending him a draft of an article he was publishing at ESPN and asked Allen if anything should be added, changed, or tweaked, and called Allen “Mr. Editor”. Doesn’t seem too scandalous, but certainly points out the bias from Schefter/ESPN and makes it clear why Schefter’s job title is “Senior NFL Insider” and not “Senior Reporter”. Schefter certainly is an insider and has good gets, but he gets that stuff because he is willing to carry water for certain people/groups. If you pay attention, you can start figuring out which GMs and agents he has relationships with because when players/coaches/GMs signed by those agents get to FA, Schefter will start putting out all sorts of stuff of them meant to inflate their value. “There are 11 teams expressing interest in X player.” “This former GM is being noted as the #1 candidate by a large number of teams and it’s shocking that their former team moved on.” Like I said, doesn’t seem too scandalous at this point, just a reminder that a lot of these sports reporters are very biased. The one way this could really go south on Schefter is if that particular story had something to do with unseemly goings on in Washington. Bruce Allen was responsible for a lot of the horrible things going on there within the organization (and one of the guys Gruden was shooting those emails to). If Schefter was letting Allen off the hook on any of that stuff, his time will be up very quickly.

I don’t see how that article answers any of the questions I had. Who in that article is liberal? Who in that article is saying the couple shouldn’t deal with the consequences of their choice? And lastly, I’m still not sure whether you are saying people SHOULD or SHOULDN’T have to live with the consequences of their choices, including choices made in standing up for what they believe is right. Can you please clarify that?