TwiceHorn

Please show your work. I can find no media sources factually reporting that Biden is "sharp as a tack." I can find lots of magat sources taking issue with that phrasing. I can also find media sources reporting various Biden insiders as saying he's "sharp" or "sharp as a tack." Such as Mayorkas. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/mayorkas-defends-biden-sharp-intensely-probing-detail-oriented-rcna138192 Also Michael Douglas. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/he-s-sharp-as-a-tack-actor-michael-douglas-defends-biden-s-mental-acuity-during-cnn-interview/ar-AA1np5QF And a Republican Senator in 2021. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/26/biden-health-republican-senators-477813 Of course, quite clearly implicit in that reportage is that Biden was not, in fact, sharp as a tack. https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/elections/2024/biden-at-81-often-sharp-and-focused-but-sometimes-confused-and-forgetful/ None of the media sources I can find aver or allege themselves that Biden is, in fact, sharp as a tack, only that others seem to think so. Also, let's compare reportage of Biden's medical condition with Trumps. Biden 2023 https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/16/politics/read-biden-physical-summary/index.html Biden 2024 https://www.npr.org/2024/02/28/1234438761/biden-physical-report including https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Health-Summary-2.28.pdf Trump. https://www.npr.org/2023/11/21/1214389287/trump-medical-report-weight including https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/da9bdc90-9ab2-4da8-819b-6fda5240a337

That's what I thought.

Matador? Meaning he waves a red cape in front of women and infuriates them? He dodges their advances? Didn't he mean predator?

As reported on a super-credible maga X account. https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/sep/20/Fact-checking-ABC-debate-whistleblower-affidavit/ An anonymous affidavit.

It's a rationale stance. Or a rationale. Or a stance. Or something.

You're retarded. Fact check me. Propaganda?

That is an opinion. Just like I think Donald Trump is unfit for office mentally and every other way. You. Cannot, Fact. Check. That. And, those media sources a) have been bitching about not having access to Biden forever, maybe for this reason and b) engaging in all sorts of speculation about his condition until he dropped out of the race. No one in the media KNEW anything.

Only one side was telling whoppers about Haitians eating pets. Listen to yourself. You're mad about fact checking when it busts your boy with his dick out. If Walz had started squawking about being retiring as a CSM or carrying guns in combat, I would have expected him to be fact checked too. These are lies, previously well-established as lies, that Vance was foolish or craven enough to repeat. Trump got to bloviate for five more minutes than Harris. Trump is the king of lies. Most of his associates are too. Trying to compare or equate him to anyone else is delusional.

Maybe this is because Republicans are no longer concerned with facts. They just want "news" they can agree with. Left leaning people and independents probably distrust media more because Fox, Newsmax, OAN and their ilk are part of the media now and they lie their asses off.

The actual language is as follows: Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects. It is legitimately thought that the wording is so broad as to encompass many expressions or communications protected by the First Amendment, such that the entire statute is unconstitutional or that it is unconstitutional as applied to many of the situations about which we fantasize prosecutions. For example, the term "controversies" is used elsewhere in the Constitution, notably Article III, which extends the jurisdiction of US federal courts to "cases" and "controversies." Those have been interpreted to mean something actual, not theoretical, hypothetical, or "made up." US involvement in Ukraine probably constitutes a controversy. Just about any matter concerning US-Russia relations, about which people disagree, probably constitutes a controversy.

Medicare expends exactly zero on those facility costs. There is no benefit for it. Now, health care in declining years, for falls and whatnot from elders left at home because people can't afford a healthcare worker, that's maybe another thing to consider. The Logan Act is less than a paper tiger. They ought to narrow it a bit or just take it off the books entirely so we can quit fantasizing about prosecutions that are never going to be brought or will be dismissed over First Amendment concerns.

And yeah, it might be coffee. Coffee does that to people.

Also "Simi," whatever the fuck that is.

Which one is an outright falsehood? The media has constantly resisted calling Trump what he is, a liar. And, because they have failed to do that, they have failed to connect the lies to policy failures.

The -2 means you have two setters rotating (as opposed to strategically subbing) in. The 5-2 has one setter rotate through the back row and the other rotate through the front row, but only one setter on the court at a time.. 6-2 has the two setters, but only rotating through the back row, again only one setter at a time. The more conventional 5-1 uses just one setter that rotates through all six positions. This refers to their starting positions (meaning until the serve) rather than where they actually set from. So it affects the serve-receive formation in addition to providing two setters' skill sets. Sort of a corollary to all of this is the "overlap rule." In a given rotation, there are three front court players and three back court, and a right, middle, and left. At serve, each of the front court players must be in front of the corresponding back court player, the two left side players must be to the left of corresponding middle players and right to the right of corresponding middle players, even if pretty slightly. (It's hard to state this accurately in words, a lot of sites explain this with varying clarity).

Agreed and the game threads were terrific. I think sbnation is all "community" sites (especially for fanbases that don't have surly's etc) and not at all set up for subscriptions, billing, etc. So harder to monetize, if not impossible. Hence the abandonment. It's not like sbnation ruined BC or anything.

If if was just a political position, like say Taylor Swift's political position, that would be one thing. A very bad thing, but one thing. But it's his fucking identity. He's so wrapped around the axle with authoritarianism, racism and misinformation it's absurd.

That's just staggering.

But really, it's a small broiler.

It hasn't folded, exactly. Pretty sure Scipio found himself moving from hobby sportswriting to making a living at it, and BC wasn't the vehicle to do so. A couple of the other better writers seemed to have no interest in making a job out of it, while some others did, but weren't nearly as good. So they dispersed.

No one goes in a temple with their head uncovered.

Not to mention that article is hilariously facile. I guess he's trying to illustrate the point.

It's just a resolution, not a law, so it doesn't require anyone to do anything. It has also just been introduced. Lunatic legislation like this gets introduced all the time. See, e.g. Greene, M.T., Boebert, L, and Gosar, P. So even if passed, it's a fart in the wind. But it is a pretty clear statement of intention.

Pretty much anyone not named Trump would have said "No, no, I can't accept this. You earned it, I did not."