Crotalus

What was the point of this titillating little bit of journalism? She wasn't calling out a particular professor, or even a particular school, but all of higher education. The message was "Parents beware. Send your kids off to college and they will turn into a liberal monster." While this guest may not be representative of all conservatives, Fox News is clearly entrenched in the conservative side of the biased news spectrum and they decided to give her her 15 minutes of fame. Bashing higher education for turning kids into liberals is not a new taking point for the right I don't understand what this accomplishes for conservatives. I personally had very few instances of professors mentioning anything political, and certainly nothing akin to brainwashing. If someone changes their views while listening to a professor a few hours a week, they probably didn't hold those views close to begin with.

I hope not, but wouldn't be surprised. Shouldn't punish the team for making it to the conference championship and having to play an extra game (well, they should drop a few spots if they lose, but should not get jumped by a team they just walloped). That happened to Mizzou in 2008. They beat Kansas to win the Big 12 North and then lost to OU in the conference championship. Kansas jumped ahead of Mizzou in the rankings despite losing to them and got the Orange Bowl invite. That was back in the BCS days, though, so hopefully the rankings play out the way they should (not that I actually care about any Big 10 football team).

Ben Askren (2,2,1,1; 2x Hodge; 2008 Oly Team member) or J'den Cox (1,5,1,1; 2016 Oly Bronze; World B,G,G,B,S) If you are counting folk and free, it's J'den, no doubt. Just folk makes it a much tougher call, but hopefully O'Toole will settle the debate in a few years.

Summary: She "deprogramed" herself by watching 5 min YouTube videos. Conclusion: She's an idiot. Plenty of conservative minded folks make it through the gauntlet of "wokeism" in college without getting brainwashed. I count many of them as friends. But perhaps I wasn't so lucky? I have been feeling a little woke this morning... Question: What is the point of the right's attack on higher education? We can make jokes about them wanting to keep the population dumb so they keep voting for them, but in all seriousness, I don't understand the end goal.

As I mentioned earlier, putting someone to death costs many times more in taxpayer dollars, than does life in prison.

This is bullshit. Thanks to the first amendment, the religious nutjobs don't get to define what marriage is. Therfore the nonreligious or those who believe marriage can include same sex marriage (many of which are religious) don't have to advocate changing anything other than strengthening marriage-equality protections because of assholes like Clarence Thomas.

As a left leaning moderate, I can generally agree with most all of these. Here's a few I feel like commenting on. Gay Rights A citizen's sexual preference must not affect one's rights and benefits. This includes marriage. If you don't agree with it, then don't get gay married and mind your own business. Regulations Government regulations hinder free-market capitalism and job growth; therefore, while needed, should be used sparingly to protect consumers and the environment. I would say "should be used whenever necessary to protect consumers and the environment". Some folks would be happy to go back to eating rat sausage next to flaming rivers in the name of removing "burdensome regulations". Death Penalty While a low percentage of innocent people are wrongfully convicted, there are situations where convicted criminals should be dispatched. I've switched my thoughts on this. I have no ethical qualms, as there are plenty of awful people that don't deserve to be here anymore. I would be still up for it if there was no question whatsoever about guilt (like these mass shooting scumbags) and the action was carried out in a timely manner. However, even one wrongfully convicted person being executed is too many, there is a strong racial disparity, and it actually ends up being far more expensive for taxpayers. Voting Major elections should be a government holiday to maximize participation. This should be a no brainer. But there are reasons some folks don't want to make voting more accessible.

Yes. Was going to comment the same thing. I guess the takedown was awarded when the cradle was locked up, but that's a technicality and shouldn't be a knock on his ability from bottom. It is his weakest position, but probably an A-. That said, if he gets an A+ from top for his ability to consistently turn everyone, and guys who only ride for the extra point get an A, then the grading scale needs adjustment.

That tweet? No. But there's a few hours prior to that tweet you might want to look at.

The point of bringing up rising crime was to blame the president, right?

Probably.

I live less than a half an hour from Baltimore and I've had no crimes committed against me (unless you count god awful driving). So clearly crime is down.

It's clearly a figurative "call to arms". Liberals don't own guns, haha. No shit. Twitter sucks.

I hope someone will post play-by-play here. That and the live discussion is what I was worried about losing the most with the old forum shutting down. Twitter, reddit, facebook, discord, etc. I don't think function as well for that purpose and a good old fashion forum does.

I hope your grandson keeps that interest. Having worked as a naturalist and done a lot of outreach/teaching, I've found that most children are fascinated by them, but somewhere around their teenage years it switches and they don't want to be in the same room. The farther they stay from the slithering humans, the happier they will be.

Well deserved, indeed. Also, J'den Cox was inducted to the University of Missouri athletics hall of fame over the weekend. https://mutigers.com/news/2022/9/23/general-mizzou-tabs-six-for-2022-hall-of-fame-class.aspx

I mean, I don't want to tell you you've been wasting your life, but..... you've certainly been missing out.

It's MU (despite being called the University of Missouri). It was a pretty great dual, but no real surprises. Connor Brown put up a pretty good fight, though not really at any risk of winning the match. Hart relaxing in the last 5 seconds was the deciding factor. Hopefully he'll learn from that, but I'd also like to see some offense out of him. I don't see big Elam on the podium this year. He just doesn't have the ability to score on the top guys.

At least we didn't miss that weird ass move by Mocco. But we may miss the rest of the match.

Gonna drive me to drink.... but not a bud light. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Ummm..... "The Value Them Both amendment restores our ability to place basic regulations on the abortion industry" Literally in their first bullet point. They want to place regulations on abortion. We can argue over what "basic" means, but the only way for voters to ensure access was to vote against the amendment. I am sorry to hear your friends and family struggled with the nuances of the bill, but again, the only way to ensure Kansans retained their right to abortion access was to vote against the amendment. Otherwise, it would be left in the hands of state legislators. As current Kansas law already bans abortion after 21 weeks and 6 days, which is most people consider "late term" abortion, the only reason to amend the constitution would be to allow those legislators to pass more restrictive laws. Snookered or not, this was, in effect, a vote to block abortion restrictions. Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

True. But the goal was to eventually pass a law that banned or highly restricts access, and this was the one and only opportunity for voters to stop it. This vote was about abortion access. If you think the previous administration was sane, you lose any credibility to make such a statement. Voters have made it clear they have had enough of that circus freak show. Almost everyone would agree that late term abortion of a health pregnancy is abhorrent. But there are far too many possible situations where it could be necessary that you can write a law that restrict access. And the evangelicals believe in making it as restrictive as possible because, you know, "it God's will". The bottom line is it should be left up to the woman and her physicians, not lawmakers. Women aren't just going to over look that.

"The lies are so effective that in states like Kansas, where abortion is legal, even Republican women believed they were losing their rights." The amendment would literally strip the constitutional right to abortion access. They would be losing their rights, and then leaving them in the hands of mostly old white men (who would most certainly attempt to pass a law akin to what Texas or Louisiana have). That idea was resoundingly rejected.

And apparently get dumber with age. After the overturn of Roe, Kansas held a vote over whether to strip the right to abortion from the state constitution, so that might have something to do with women in the state feeling like their rights were at stake. They voted overwhelmingly to keep that right. Many states had trigger laws that banned or severely limited access the instant Roe was overturned. And politicians like Lindsey Graham (who should be all about "states rights"), made comments about the need for a nationwide ban. Not hard to see why this would drive people to the polls. No media lies needed.