Wabash82

Well, in Darwinian terms, there's nurture... and then there's nature.

I am sure his attorney doesn't. His MO, which has left him well compensated, usually involves leveraging the threat of continued bad publicity to get settlements, and I suspect he will have some success with that approach again here -- if not against the Post, at least with the smaller, less well-funded defendants he sues down the road. His representation of Richard Jewell is probably instructive in that regard: he reached nice but not huge settlements fairly quickly with most the media organizations he sued or threatened to sue; he lost the once defamation case (against the Atlanta newspaper) he actually took to trial. Defamation is not the same as shoddy reporting. I have not seen where the Post actually make any false assertions of fact about Sandman.

Well, you may be right in blaming your education. But before besmirching a fine institution like ISU, we should probably consider some alternative theories.... 😉

.

Well, I looked through the allegations for some negative statement of fact specifically about Sandman that was made by the Washington Post, and calling the look on his face a "smirk" was the closest thing I could find. All the other stuff appears to be statements made by the old dude in the video, which the Post quoted. And most of those statements sound like matters of opinion, not factual assertions, as pointed out in the article. Unless they invent a new legal cause of action for shoddy, one-sided reporting, I don't think the Post has much to fear in terms of actual liability here. Which in no way means they won't still settle the case just to make it go away.

If characterizing a kid's (self-described) smile as a "smirk" is defamation, then I need to get Bobref immediately to file my defamation case against Muda, who has falsely imputed all sorts of mean and negative intentions to my gentle commentaries on this forum.

In case anyone was wondering where I got my posting style.

You seem to be implying that the level of illegal immigration has been unabated since the Reagan years, which obviously is not true. The question of whether (and if so, what) we need to do about the 11 million illegals already here -- most of whom have been here for quite awhile-- is a completely separate question from whether we need to be doing something new or different today from the (apparently fairly successful) things we have been doing over the last 30 years to mitigate or limit further illegal immigration. Or, even if we do decide we do need to do something new or different, whether building "The Wall" (however that is being redefined this particular week/day/hour/minute by the President) is the right thing to do to achieve that goal. The notion that, because some Democrats voted in past years to add or upgrade fencing along some parts of the border, current Democrats are being hypocritical not to support the President's undefined, amorphous Wall, is akin to saying that all Republicans who today don't support the Dreamers Act are hypocrites, because many Republicans supported the Reagan era "amnesty" for illegals.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/309281/do-capitalization-and-punctuation-fall-under-the-category-of-grammar

I don't think there was such a time. But the words as written (and punctuated) on the sign are not grammatically incorrect -- they make out an intelligible statement in "correct" English grammar. (Indeed, that is precisely what makes the sign funny/ironic). But the words don't convey the meaning that the person (presumably) intended because of a punctuation problem (misplacement of the exclamation point.)

Following the 25th Amendment would not a "coup." It is really the exact opposite of a coup -- it is the legal processes We the People have chosen for removing a President who is unfit. If the process had been used, it would have been a legal removal, not a coup. It also would have provided the president with the legak process to get back into control, by establishing his "fitness."

With adults, the wearing of a MAGA hat simply brings to mind the old saw (from the "Urban Cowboy" era) about what hemorrhoids and cowboy hats have in common. With kids, like those in this Covington Catholic kerfuffle, the wearing of a MAGA hat is about as "meaningful" as the wearing of a Che Guevara t-shirt. Imputing anything more to it than that the kids appreciate it annoys some adults, is a waste of mental effort.

Technically, it's a punctuation problem, not bad grammar....

With courage and Jesus's help, we can cure you and your loved ones of this demon addiction....

The focus in the current crack down is on prescribers, not on patients. You very probably are on a list -- it is called INSPECT in Indiana, if you want to google it -- because you said you personally were written a scrip for an opiod. Your health insurance carrier's SIU team also maybe have you flagged on a list to run your claims history through an algorithm for signs of possible drug seeking behavior. But the prescribing doctors for all the separate opiod prescriptions you mentioned are very definitely on "lists," which the State licensing board reviews, which tally the scrips each of them has written to any patients for an opiod.

The doctors face the conundrum that the patient's circumstances do not go into the data base that is being looked at by licensing (and law enforcement) officials who are enforcing the new crack down on opiods. As far as potential repercussions for the prescribing doctor, it is largely the same as if your mother was a drug seeker off the street making the rounds of pain centers and ERs, looking for a high. She was another "stat" he'd have to explain in a system that is largely operating under a "presumed guilty" bias.

Saw his new "Finish the Wall" banner and laughed so hard I almost choked. I go back and forth on whether he is delusional, or if he is just the most cynical person alive, and it amuses him somehow to mock his "base" like that.

Reality is more complicated. In Indianapolis, some charter schools have done quite well, especially for minority students. Vouchers are a different animal. There aren't "voucher schools", vouchers are a mechanism to pay tuition costs at private schools. In a practical sense, the actual "voucher schools" are the many religiously-based private schools in Indiana, such as several of the grade school-level, parish- and diocesan-supported Catholic schools in Indianapolis, that probably would have closed down by now if Indiana did not have a voucher system. Those schools generally serve their students as well as other private and public schools. But for many folks, like me, the use of public funds to support these religiously-based schools seems unconstitutional, even if the SCOTUS believes otherwise. https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/two-indianapolis-based-studies-point-to-charter-school-success

True, but her very direct statement in the article you quoted in your post is not....

My dad, also Navy, was in those battles as well. Do you know what ship(s) your uncle served on? Dad was on USS Vincennes during Leyte and USS Vicksburg during Okinawa.

It sounds like the artist's intention was to make exactly that point, SF: as she indicated, she wants to expose the "icky truth" of the pleasure we get from demeaning/belitting others, and the petty rationalizations we tell ourselves about why it is "okay" to demean "that" person. It sounds like it would be a good "check yourself" exhibit for both some liberals and for Mrs. Trump's husband....

Thank you. I needed the material to recreate my signature on GID 2.0.

Obviously, it is not an actual "emergency" emergency, or he wouldn't be waiting three weeks (or have gone two years deep into his presidency) before taking action. And his "fix" for the non-emergency emergency won't be "the Wall", unless "the Wall" is re-defined as whatever paltry 100 miles or so of barb wire or fencing or pretty metal slats he manages to get thrown up by soldiers (who really do have better things to do) in between the preliminary injunctions, so he can call into Fox and Friends and declare his great victory. But I think your analysis is otherwise spot on. 😉 I don't this guy is using the word "abrogating" correctly here. The gist of his argument seems to be that Trump would be exceeding his Constitutional authority if he did this, and I don't think "abrogating" is a synonym for "exceeding."

Aha! Now it makes sense.... http://existentialcomics.com/comic/273