Wabash82
-
Posts
254 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Articles
Events
Posts posted by Wabash82
-
-
3 hours ago, TrojanDad said:
I'm guessing Sandmann's attorney feels its not a waste of time. He's got a pretty decent track record in this arena. The Post left out a ton of details...and certainly help to paint an incomplete picture at best. The young man because of the reporting that told only part of the story received death threats and harassment. Several other organizations have been put on notice. I guess time will tell.
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.
-
5 hours ago, Muda69 said:
Gentle? I often find them cutting but insightful, and written in a prose that a mental midget like myself can only dream about. It may be that elite Wabash education vs. my lowly Indiana State education................
Well, you may be right in blaming your education. But before besmirching a fine institution like ISU, we should probably consider some alternative theories.... 😉
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, TrojanDad said:
Yea...I'm sure that this is what its about.......a smirk.🙄
.
-
18 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:
Yea...I'm sure that this is what its about.......a smirk.🙄
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.
-
2 hours ago, Muda69 said:
Nick Sandmann Sues Washington Post for $250 Million: http://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/20/nick-sandmann-sues-washington-post-for-2
Yeah, this will be a tough one for Mr. Sandmann to win.
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.
-
1
-
-
In case anyone was wondering where I got my posting style.
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, swordfish said:
A two year event? What rock have you been living under since Reagan was in office and has resulted in (estimated) almost 13 million
illegal aliensundocumented immigrants. Everyone seems to forget that little bit of history like when the fencing/border barrier was approved under Bush 44 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006 and continued through Obama.SF doesn't like it either, but with this having been going on since the Reagan years without ANY resolution this President (who IMHO really wants results, not sweet talk) is determined to get this done since the partisan divide in the House and Senate is making it impossible. I don't agree with your opinion that it is against the American people. My main concern is that this action will lead to the next side of the aisle declaring "man-made climate change" a national emergency under the next administration.
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.
-
2
-
-
34 minutes ago, DK_Barons said:
Here's one where spelling/capitalization makes a big difference. ...also considered a grammatical error if you intended one but penned the other.
Coach Nowlin was out in the barn helping my Uncle Jack off a horse.
verses
Coach Nowlin was out in the barn helping my uncle jack off a horse.
-
14 minutes ago, DK_Barons said:
Hmm, so when was punctuation no longer considered a part of the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general? 😉
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.)
-
3 hours ago, swordfish said:
McCabe speaks out and is under fire from both Trump and the DOJ.
On "CBS This Morning," Pelley provided more details about the interview, including McCabe's description of the aftermath of Comey's firing, saying there were "meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment."
"These were the eight days from Comey's firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel," he continued. "And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what do with the president."
In an interview with NBC News' Andrea Mitchell, Vice President Mike Pence said, however, that he "never heard of any discussion of the 25th amendment, and, frankly, I find any mention of it to be absurd." He added that he "couldn't be more proud" of Trump's accomplishments in office, "and the words of a disgraced FBI agent won't change that fact for the American people."
On Thursday, Pelley also said McCabe confirmed in the interview that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein did consider wearing a wire in meetings with the president. When that information was reported last year, it nearly led to Rosenstein's exit from the Justice Department. Although a prior Justice Department statement said the proposal was made in jest, McCabe said it was taken seriously, Pelley said.
McCabe "says no, it came up more than once, and it was so serious that he took it to the lawyers at the FBI to discuss it," Pelley said.
In a statement Thursday, the Justice Department disputed McCabe's assertions in the interview, calling his recollections "inaccurate and factually incorrect."
"The Deputy Attorney General never authorized any recording that Mr. McCabe references," the department's statement said. "As the Deputy Attorney General previously has stated, based on his personal dealings with the President, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment, nor was the DAG in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment."
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, meanwhile, said in a statement that McCabe "was fired in total disgrace from the FBI because he lied to investigators on multiple occasions, including under oath."
"His selfish and destructive agenda drove him to open a completely baseless investigation into the President," she continued. "His actions were so shameful that he was referred to federal prosecutors. Andrew McCabe has no credibility and is an embarrassment to the men and women of the FBI and our great country."
McCabe was fired last year — just before his planned retirement — in the aftermath of a Justice Department inspector general's report said he misled investigators regarding a leak about the FBI's investigation of the Clinton Foundation, which he denies. The inspector general referred its findings to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia last year for possible prosecution, and prosecutors reportedly have convened a grand jury on the matter.
Even though he is no longer there, and is actually close to being prosecuted, I wonder if people realize how determined and close this guy was to heading a coup to oust the President using a fake dossier as the genesis. Endorsing Deputy Attorney Rosenstein to "wear a wire" in meetings with the President. I suppose since the Mueller investigation is winding down and the current word is there is nothing implicating the President colluded with Russia, he thinks he better his book out there while he can still sell a few......
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.
-
20 hours ago, DK_Barons said:
These just belong together.
Technically, it's a punctuation problem, not bad grammar....
-
14 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:
Between my parents and I, virtually every surgery we’ve been sent home with an opioid script. Doctors from Carmel to Louisville. Perhaps my experience has been an anomaly or we’ve only had painful surgeries.
With courage and Jesus's help, we can cure you and your loved ones of this demon addiction....
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Impartial_Observer said:
I get it, but as I stated, first visit to a pain management doctor. Had been prescribed OxyCodone, 5mg, then 7.5mg, then 10mg, in the months leading up to this. Multiple compression fractures in her spine. From two in August to four in October, the seven in November. She was literally two weeks away from Hospice care and a Morphine drip. At some point, common sense has to enter into the equation. She was clearly not doctor shopping, we had a referral from a neurosurgeon, who didn't prescribe anything.
In a month's time I have picked up two different scripts for my dad after medical procedure for opioids, a script for myself for opioids, and another script for myself for a controled substance. From four different doctors, three surgeons and my family doctor. I had to present my ID each time, you reckon I'm on a list somewhere?
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.
-
1 hour ago, Impartial_Observer said:
I agree, my mom was in a great deal of pain in her final weeks. We were finally referred to a pain management doctor who was hesitant to prescribe anything besides the OxyCodone she was on. After some heated words from yours truly, we left with a script for Fentynal patches. Under his care, within a week he actually had to bump the dosage up. In less than a week she was in the hospital on morphine.
The point being, we're clearly dealing with end of life stuff with a 78 year old woman. She's never been to a pain management doctor in her life, she's in a wheelchair, and it's not hard to tell she's suffering. Why are we forcing people like this to suffer when there are drugs to alleviate the pain. Why the hoop jumping? Why am I forced to get upset and be a jerk to the doctor to get her taken care of? Even if addiction was a potential problem, at her stage of the game, so what?
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.
-
3 hours ago, foxbat said:
Look's like it's not just Melania who likes to borrow from former First Ladies ...
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.
-
On 2/3/2019 at 8:59 AM, gonzoron said:
Vouchers and Charter Schools have shown to be failures. Both financially and educationally. Perhaps that's why he has changed his stance.
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
-
3 hours ago, swordfish said:
Art is open to interpretation.....
True, but her very direct statement in the article you quoted in your post is not....
-
3 hours ago, TrojanDad said:
My uncle Art (Navy and fought in 6 major engagements to include Leyte Gulf and Okinawa as a gunner) never, ever said a word.
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.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, swordfish said:
WASHINGTON (AP) — A new art exhibit at a Washington museum shows an Ivanka Trump lookalike pushing a vacuum cleaner and invites spectators to toss crumbs for her to clean up.
The art piece by Jennifer Rubell, titled “Ivanka Vacuuming,” opened Feb. 1 and continues through Feb. 17 at the Flashpoint Gallery. The public is encouraged to “throw crumbs onto the carpet, watching as Ivanka elegantly vacuums up the mess, her smile never wavering.”
A large text description of the work hanging on the gallery wall describes Ivanka Trump as “a figure whose public persona incorporates an almost comically wide range of feminine identities — daughter, wife, mother, sister, model, working woman, blonde.” It calls the act of throwing bread crumbs onto the carpet for her to vacuum “surprisingly pleasurable.”The work is open to the public from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. The exhibit is presented by the CulturalDC arts organization, and Executive Director Kristi Maiselman said her group is always happy to present “timely boundary-pushing installations” like this.
The gallery text declares Ivanka Trump to be a “contemporary feminine icon” and an avatar for the complexities of modern femininity.
Rubell, a New York-based conceptual artist, said in an interview on the CulturalDC website that the experience is meant to draw observers and crumb-throwers into a complicit relationship.
“Here is what’s complicated: We enjoy throwing the crumbs for Ivanka to vacuum. That is the icky truth at the center of the work. It’s funny, it’s pleasurable, it makes us feel powerful, and we want todo it more,” she says. “Also, we know she’ll keep vacuuming whether we do it or not, so it’s not really our fault, right?”Kinda like Bullying? But it's ok I guess, since she is a Trump......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....
-
8 hours ago, Muda69 said:
Who am I to argue with a lawyer, a wordsmith, and the smartest guy on the GID? I suggest you contact the author of said commentary and inform him of his incorrect usage of this word. Here is Mr. Dickinson's contact info: https://www.law.pitt.edu/people/gerald-s-dickinson. I'm sure he would welcome helpful criticism from a fellow legal professional.
Thank you. I needed the material to recreate my signature on GID 2.0.
-
2
-
-
On 1/28/2019 at 3:45 PM, swordfish said:
Did anyone listen to the speech in the Rose Garden? The President opened the Government for 3 weeks. He literally said you have 3 weeks to fund the wall. If not - it's an emergency. Pelosi already said she wouldn't negotiate until the shutdown was over......It's over, workers are being paid, the SOTU will take place. If in 3 weeks, there is no resolution, this President will finish this in his way. He and every President since Reagan has promised a solution, he is determined to deliver a real fix. I would bet if the House and Senate cannot come up with something, the DACA olive branch he was dangling will disappear.
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. 😉
On 1/28/2019 at 3:52 PM, Muda69 said:FTA:
Trump may be abrogating his constitutional authority by ordering the troops to go it alone in seizing land along the border.
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....
The Media Wildly Mischaracterized That Video of Covington Catholic Students Confronting a Native American Veteran
in Out of Bound Forum
Posted
Well, in Darwinian terms, there's nurture... and then there's nature.