#10-
Reminds me of going to the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam high as a kite in 2001. Was not disappointed.

Fair enough. I still think it's unnecessary, but I get your point and have seen those trends also. I may not post much, but I am on here almost daily. Personally, I think it's just as easy to point out the idiocy of most of his posts without invoking race. Likewise with Bill Johnson. But I completely understand your desire to call out perceived hypocrisy.

#40-
I disagree with Boaz I'm pretty much everything (often vehemently) and do also find it baffling that he seems to vote against his own self-interest, but this type of race baiting is uncalled for.

Understood, Boaz. It definitely sounded like you disagreed with the decision. My apologies if I misinterpreted.

It probably doesn't sound right because you disagree with it. But that doesn't mean you can misinterpret what is written in the decision. Furthermore, based on that sentence alone, it sounds like Gorsuch was applying a literalist interpretation of the amendment, something that Conservatives like yourself often advocate for.

But they are saying they have made a decision based on "intent" of someone who isnt here anymore.

Boaz, this is the complete opposite of what that sentence is saying. Gorsuch says that the people who wrote this amendment could NOT have imagined (nor intended) that the law would be used this way, BUT the LETTER of the law says that it SHOULD be used this way. It has NOTHING to do with what the people who wrote the amendment imagined or anticipated but STRICTLY what was WRITTEN.

Or what big man?

#6 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2020-06-03 04:48 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

One of the stupidest posts I've read on here in a long time.

I have a former student who has expressed on Facebook how much he admires this move by Trump as a way of reminding our country to get back in touch with God and to pray about the things that are going on.

So while this is a cynical, jingoistic ploy to pretty much anyone paying attention, it apparently is STILL speaking to Trump's base.

I try to avoid picking political fights on Facebook with former students for a WIDE variety of reasons, but that one was reeeeallllly hard.

Was there a car antenna involved?! O.o

Looks like "Race Riots" is going to have some serious competition to how 2020 is going to eff us in the A in June...

the most corrupt President in our history

*citation necessary

I am SO curious about how the next president (whether Biden in 2020 or Klobuchar in 2024) will act in this same situation. Will they be gracious to Trump and unveil a portrait in a "normal" ceremony? Seems like a catch 22. If they act like things are normal, they legitimize this fool of a President that we currently have and give him another platform to spread his craziness. If they don't, they will continue to give other future Presidents a precedent to follow in breaking ties and decorum with the previous administration.

But let's be real about this: whatever the NEXT president does, it's a DIRECT result of Trump screwing the pooch and breaking down all customs and decorum in the first place.

Seems like the article has an interesting and valid point: the differences in how people of different political stripes respond to the crisis is attributable to how it impacts their communities.

The headline (surprise surprise) seems to indicate that there is something partisan about how the virus operates.

What a maroon.

Simple question here. I'm honestly not trying to stir the pot. I'm curious how a subatomic particle can have a mass of 0. Is it a matter of rounding? I would think that ANY particle must have SOME kind of mass, even if it is approaching 0. After all, objects that DO have mass are ultimately made up of atomic particles....which are made up of subatomic particles.

I'm just curious about the physics. Again not saying anyone is right or wrong.

I struggle with this teaching English all the time. When I read Of Mice and Men or The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, for example, I struggle with whether I actually say the word out loud or not. I've defaulted to saying it and providing the class a brief explanation of why I say the word (to address its power and its historical place, to figure out why it makes us uncomfortable, etc.) and then moving it. But it always sticks with me. I teach at an almost entirely white school where the limited number of students of color have expressed that they sense subtle racism from large contingents of the student body. I wonder about how it must feel to be the only student of color in class and to have your teacher say that word out loud. I don't use it unless it's a direct quote from the book, and even then I tend to only use it when I'm reading from the book and not when I'm talking about what a quote means. But still - that word has power, and as a middle aged white man, I'm not sure I'm in the best position to say what kind of power it should or should not have. I really struggle with it.

I also teach Macbeth. Students always need an explanation at this line. I would not have used the actual N-word to explain the difference. I can see being reprimanded, but fined $5000? That's a little ridiculous.

On a side note, the article said the teacher was suspended with pay for the first half of the 2019-2020 school year. Can you imagine being "off" for half a year and then coming back for less than a quarter and then having to deal with the -------- that is COVID-19 teaching? JTC.

History question here. Maybe someone can help me. I'm genuinely curious and looking for as non partisan an answer as possible.

In my Communications class, I often show Reagan's 1976 RNC speech where he calls for party unity after a contentious primary between him and Gerald Ford. As Ford introduces Reagan, who does the typical thanking of everybody at the start of the speech, who is hanging out on the stage like party royalty? Richard Nixon! What gives? Was there a moment of forgiveness in the party after he resigned? Did the scandal just blow over by then? I would've assumed he'd be a pariah still at that point. This was 5 years before I was born and about 30 years before I feel like I really started to understand politics, so I have nothing for a frame of reference.

I feel like "atheist" is a misnomer. What do you call someone who never really thought much about religion but freely uses it in a self-serving manner despite not believing or knowing anything about it himself? Hypocrite? -------? I don't know. Atheist just seems wrong though.

The county I have in has only had ten cases, so take this all with a grain of salt. I always wear a mask when I go out, but in stores it's a real crap shoot. Grocery store is probably getting to the point where about 30-40% of people are wearing masks (both customer and worker alike). Hardware store is probably more in the range of 20-30%. The kicker, though, is when I see a couple shopping at the grocery store (ignoring the signs imploring people to shop alone, naturally) and the wife is wearing a mask while the husband follows behind, hands in pockets, without a mask. It's a serious case study in people watching.

This is what is most aggravating about the protestors at the moment. They're idiots for going out and advocating for what they're advocating for, but I think for some of them at least, it's coming from a very genuine spot: how am I supposed to make ends meet when I'm not working? The fact of the matter is that problems like this call for more government, not less government. Unless there are more efforts to take care of people - postponing bills, increasing unemployment benefits, additional cash pay outs to families, support for small business, mortgage and loan relief - we're going to see people engaging in this type of risky behavior.

One thing I'm genuinely curious about is how many of the protestors are feeling these pressures directly (bills, lack of resources, food shortage, etc.) and how many of them are just pissing and moaning because the gub'mint is telling them what to do.

Never trust a Senator named Burr...

This is a good counterpoint to the article posted earlier this week. I'd love to see all the people who were bashing Governor Evers there come to this thread to express that they were wrong. The Governor doesn't even have the power to move the date of the election. I read somewhere that Governor De Santis (sp?) moved the date and basically dared the legislature and courts to stop him, but if the power lies with the legislature, then they should be the ones to move the date. Wisconsin Republicans? They only care about two things: the rich, and staying in power.

According to Politico, Evers tried to call a special session today to try to deal with this, and the Republican controlled legislature gaveled it close almost immediately while taking no action whatsoever. I wish a solution would've been found ages ago, but this is hardly a Governor-only problem. State republicans also had PLENTY of time to find a solution.