Kyle

Sort of winging it, but guessing it is a lot harder to be a serial killer these days given science and technology. More cameras, more databases, DNA have to give some pause - many seem to be a weird mix of intelligent and insane, so maybe some are finding other ways to fight their demons.

I really liked it. As noted before, a good, mindless, fun airplane movie. While I thought she was hot, I thought it was a weird casting ... don't have a great alternative. Elba of course was great.

Sounds like this guy had serious mental problems but refused help. It feels like we need to return to forceable treatment or institutionalization of some mentally ill people. I respect the ACLU and realize it will lose its mind, but this feels like a public safety issue at this point. Naive but optimistic we have advanced culturally and medically so we can do so with better conditions and treatment that can return most to normality.

I had never heard of this story, but it is pretty crazy. It popped up on this podcast, True Crime Brewery. Basically a surgeon is a con man who cons world renowned scientists, NBC News, and several women, including a "documentary" filmmaker. Guy faked his resume, got into possibly the world's most exclusive medical institute, and butchered a bunch of poor people with fraudulent, phony surgeries. Lots of layers in the story, and it is a good illustration of how even those ostensible sophisticated scientists and journalists can easily be duped. Sounds like common sense checks and balances broke down, illustrating that even the most reputable institutions fall to the same temptations and weaknesses that befell us all. Maybe I'm the only guy that missed this story, but I was surprised being how crazy it was it did not make more national news - part of that is apparently NBC has tried to whitewash its news and "documentary" endorsements.

Chuckle. Similarly, I'll buy you a bottle of any whiskey you want if that actually happens.

I don't think I'm doing a good job of helping explain the nuances, but I doubt it really matters. Nothing I am going to say or share is going to change your mind or anyone on the board. I thought I owed you a response. If you disagree with me, no skin off either one of our backs. I will continue to believe that words matter and see a difference between a "political stunt" and a "dirty trick." For example, a "dirty trick" would be if the GOP funded the caravan and then deployed the troops to fight it, but you'll never see it that way and alas, It is really not worth anymore of our time. Have a great week.

I appreciate the thoughtful response. We can respectfully agree to disagree on asylum, illegality, etc. I realize the cloak of asylum was used as the story, but questions of granting asylum is another complexity to a tough political and moral issue. I concede I'm not an expert on the nuances of asylum, but I would happily buy you any bottle of whiskey if most of the members of the caravan ultimately entered the country legally and followed the appropriate procedures.

A "dirty trick" and a "political stunt" are two different things. Is your contention there is not a caravan of Central Americans attempting to enter the U.S. illegally? I can see where there would be value in have a military presence there to retain order given how these guys treated their entry into Mexico. Nuance is important - sending troops before the election absolutely was political but not without merit or value IMHO - unless you think the caravan was just a fabrication.

Agreed.

Words matter. If you want to have a reasonably dialogue, it has to begin with personal integrity. Sending troops to the border is not a dirty trick. One can agree or disagree with it, but it is not a dirty trick by any definition. What was the "false pretense" or "complete fabrication of the truth?" Immigration is a extremely complex moral and political question that requires more than hyperbolic emotion to solve.

I think you're pretty much proving his point. If you want to fix political dialogue, stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a name and engage in the marketplace of ideas. Neither party has the market cornered on bigotry, cheating, lying, etc. If you really want change, it starts on an individual level - do you choose to discuss ideas and policies or make hateful comments about the other tribe.

The Democratic primary will be interesting. O'Rourke definitely is the most likable and least kooky of the potential nominees. Plus, being from a big, red state would be an asset. It largely depends on how far Left the primaries will be -> O'Rourke is everything ostensibly the Left hates, so curious if the far Left would get on board.

Costs of college education could be reduced (among other things) if schools stopped spending money on snowflake initiatives.

I did not vote Republican in 2016.

This. As a moderate, the hyperbolic, hateful emotional tone of every discussion is a big turnoff. I prefer to discuss issues than personality. I did not care for Cruz, but I saw no compelling reason to change. I understood O'Rourke's charisma and appeal, but I would prefer someone more centrist than either Cruz or O'Rourke. Given the results, did not see a compelling reason to change. I was one of those people stimulated by the Kavanaugh hearing because dirty tricks inherently turn me off to both sides. I did not support the lack of vote on Garland, and I did not support the fake hit on Kavanaugh.

On the OP, no question historically Democrats have a much better track record running the House than the Republicans. The closest the GOP ever got was Gingrich, and sort of like Pelosi the external brand was bad while the internal machinations were there. My guess is Pelosi is an extremely effective internal leader even if she comes across externally as a nitwit.

I said 0.01%. I just do not see as many thoughtful discussions as I would like, which is one reason I really do not engage in political discussions as much as I used to - too much hate and intolerance for any diverse points of view. I can separate "likability" and "effectiveness," but I realize for many those are the same.

That pretty much goes for 99.99% of people's opinions about every politician. Even on this forum only about 0.01% of the political threads actually discuss anything other than propaganda.

He's the vice president on the 2020 Democratic ticket.

Agree with Vic. I would re-district back to six conferences, each with a championship game - effective round of 16. Then have six champions plus two at-large (either independents or best runners-up from conferences). First round occurs at top seed home field the week of Army-Navy. Then you have four teams to slide into the current calendar.

I realize my own fault, but my intent was not to derail the thread to Baylor. My point was just that Baylor had two players arrested for rape; both were immediately kicked off the team (I apologize for misspeaking about Elliot having actually played, and Oakman was post-playing career). Fatterson did nothing to Turpin or Boykin and re-instated Pachall and maybe others (not an expert, don't have the time). My guess is if that if ESPN lights a fire in Cowtown like it did in Waco, the results will be similar. This Turpin situation is bad based on the Baylor (vs. FSU-Winston) standard. Apologies for the derail - not defending either but wanted to clarify.

Baylor had two players arrested. Neither ever played a down as they were booted from the team upon arrest. In addition to this guy, TCU had Boykin, Pachall, the players arrested for dealing drugs ... I'm not sure its not significantly worse than Baylor objectively (dogpile notwithstanding). If this isn't a pattern of lack of institutional control and players behaving badly, not sure what is; and the university's reaction has not been stellar.

Fatterson's head was in the towel: https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article220463635.html TCU football coaches have known for over a month about an incident back in March involving star receiver KaVontae Turpin, but when the senior was asked about the alleged altercation he lied, sources said. Sources and friends of Turpin said he downplayed and minimized the incident involving his girlfriend. With his likeable personality and giant smile on his small frame, people bought it. No one ever looked into it further. All one had to do was type in his name for a background check and they would have seen that a bench warrant was issued in July by a Las Cruces, New Mexico court on Turpin over a battery charge from the incident, which he denied. These background checks are the same ones athletic departments run on potential recruits before offering a scholarship. The checks are free. Read more here: https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article220463635.html#storylink=cpy

Maybe he'll transfer to FSU and win a Heisman.

"Everybody knows how I handle things like this, anytime we have a situation like this," Patterson said. "We're gathering information, but at this point in time, he probably won't play against Kansas (on Saturday)." https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/big12/2018/10/22/tcu-kavontae-turpin-arrested-suspicion-assaulting-family-member/1727497002/ The Ticket reported this morning Fatterson ignored his arrest / warrant issued earlier for an incident in New Mexico. He has a long history of this from his QBs beating up women, selling drugs, and a few years back when much of his team was running a crime ring. Paging Outside the Lines.