So Aaron Rodgers is (finally) done on ESPN. This whole Jimmy Kimmel / Aaron Rodgers thing has been very interesting to me. They represent the two sides of the culture war of late. I think Rodgers is a blow hard and an idiot who shouldn't have a platform to be honest... but at the same time, I think the way Jimmy handled the issue wasn't great either.
rodgers needs to go away. i work in medical device industry. there is no way in hell he was coming back from that achilles tear this year. no matter what product was used to repair the tendon, we cannot speed up physiology and healing and return to elite levels of function in 5 months. its just not possible. so this, along with his superimmunity to covid, he can fuck off with.
Look into HGH and stem cells.
hgh is actually known to weaken tendons because the muscle gets too strong and the tendon fails. would not be advisable for him to take it.
the jury is out on stem cells and elite athletes with achilles ruptures and repairs. no long term data. there have been some studies that suggest it may help, but nothing conclusive.
i worked with an orthopedic surgeon for 10 years before going into sales.
Yah, but Aaron Rodgers gets medical advice from Joe Rogan among others, so there's that.
A handful of Yankees took it too for recovery time. But i'm also curious as to the benefits of it if there are, other countries tend to think so.
i am sure that hgh may help with some issues. the achilles is one of the most important and dense tendons in the body. aside from the patellar tendon and quad tendon. the gastroc and soleus combine into that tendon. besides pushing off when you walk and run, the soleus is also an antigravity muscle, meaning as long as you are standing, that muscle is firing to hold you upright against gravity. same with the quadriceps, abdominals, and erector muscles in the spine. the fact that they are antigravity muscles makes them take longer to heal, because they serve their primary function of moving a joint, and also constantly firing to keep you upright against gravity. hgh causes significant muscle hypertrophy, or growth, increasing strength, and in many cases the muscle overpowers the tendon, which taking hgh as a powerlifter or something can cause the muscle to rupture the tendon. in someone with a repair, rapid muscle growth and significantly increased muscle power can cause the tendon to rupture either above or below where the repair was. also muscle growth can cause decreased flexibility/range of motion which can put you at greater risk for other injuries.
stem cells there is promising research in some areas. but since it is not a proven modality it is not covered by insurance in a lot of cases. once it has the evidence to back up the theory, it will be more accepted as a viable treatment option. once that happens it will get fda approval, and once medicare agrees to cover it, the rest of the insurance companies will follow suit. professional athletes injured on the field are considered employees and are under workman's comp. the team covers the expense of their treatment. if a team has millions invested in a player they have an interest in getting that player better, so they are willing to pay the cost of treatments, even if the fda still considers them "experimental". that is why you or i probably would have to pay out of pocket if we wanted stem cells for certain issues.
The players did pay out of pocket because baseball has banned the practice. There are many stories of people seeking stem cell treatment in other countries with great success. Supposedly the religious right has a problem using stem cells?
I read stories on it every now and again so it is a thing still.
it is definitely still a thing. there is just no long term data on outcomes yet. kind of like PRP. outcome data shows it only works on a few things, like chronic tennis elbow and chronic achilles tendinopathy.
many things have come to the market as innovations in ortheopaedic surgery that end up having terrible outcomes long term. i remember back in 1998 thermal assisted tissue shrinkage with a laser was all the rage for shoulder instability/dislocations and chronic ankle instability. it was rushed to the market with no long term outcome data, and then all of these people that had their loose shoulders tightened with the laser had their joint capsules stretch out and then their shoulders were more unstable than before the surgery. not only that, but the nerve receptors in the tissue that sense motion and movement were fried so their shoulders were unable to be repaired after that. that company got sued for hundreds of millions of dollars. also the hip joints with metal heads on metal shells and liners were spectacular failures. they worked well initially but long term the metal broke down and made people sick. both examples were way before i started in the industry though. back when i was still in grad school or early in my career. i think the fda is taking a harder look at new technology and new potential treatment modalities these days.
i think that the stem cells are used with cells from an aborted fetus or something. i am not certain, but i think steve scalise, big pro life republican, got in big trouble a few weeks ago for opposing stem cells for everyone else while getting stem cell treatment on himself.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
tony dungy still trying to cancel taylor swift. i bet he gets himself canceled from his commentator job before this is all over.
He has a point though. You know how many people are tired of hearing about Taylor Swift, lol?
only because she isn't trying to give them some. she has drawn new fans to the game, so that is good for the nfl. as far as her being a distraction, these guys are professional athletes in their 20s and 30s. if a cute woman shows up at their game and they get distracted, that is on the players and their immaturity. not taylor swift. it's not high school, lol.
does she get credit because they won sunday?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
tony dungy still trying to cancel taylor swift. i bet he gets himself canceled from his commentator job before this is all over.
He has a point though. You know how many people are tired of hearing about Taylor Swift, lol?
only because she isn't trying to give them some. she has drawn new fans to the game, so that is good for the nfl. as far as her being a distraction, these guys are professional athletes in their 20s and 30s. if a cute woman shows up at their game and they get distracted, that is on the players and their immaturity. not taylor swift. it's not high school, lol.
does she get credit because they won sunday?
As long as she got credit for them losing the other times she went too, sure, lol.
There are people that don't give two shits about Taylor Swift and want to watch football. There is a bunch of coverage on her being there, what she wears, etc.
It doesn't bother me as I like Taylor Swift as an artist and person but the fact that she tilts her head a certain way and it makes the news as coverage is silly...
tony dungy still trying to cancel taylor swift. i bet he gets himself canceled from his commentator job before this is all over.
He has a point though. You know how many people are tired of hearing about Taylor Swift, lol?
only because she isn't trying to give them some. she has drawn new fans to the game, so that is good for the nfl. as far as her being a distraction, these guys are professional athletes in their 20s and 30s. if a cute woman shows up at their game and they get distracted, that is on the players and their immaturity. not taylor swift. it's not high school, lol.
does she get credit because they won sunday?
As long as she got credit for them losing the other times she went too, sure, lol.
There are people that don't give two shits about Taylor Swift and want to watch football. There is a bunch of coverage on her being there, what she wears, etc.
It doesn't bother me as I like Taylor Swift as an artist and person but the fact that she tilts her head a certain way and it makes the news as coverage is silly...
You don’t apply the same logic to her as you do Aaron Rodgers in that ‘she must be interesting if people are talking about her’?
tony dungy still trying to cancel taylor swift. i bet he gets himself canceled from his commentator job before this is all over.
He has a point though. You know how many people are tired of hearing about Taylor Swift, lol?
only because she isn't trying to give them some. she has drawn new fans to the game, so that is good for the nfl. as far as her being a distraction, these guys are professional athletes in their 20s and 30s. if a cute woman shows up at their game and they get distracted, that is on the players and their immaturity. not taylor swift. it's not high school, lol.
does she get credit because they won sunday?
As long as she got credit for them losing the other times she went too, sure, lol.
There are people that don't give two shits about Taylor Swift and want to watch football. There is a bunch of coverage on her being there, what she wears, etc.
It doesn't bother me as I like Taylor Swift as an artist and person but the fact that she tilts her head a certain way and it makes the news as coverage is silly...
You don’t apply the same logic to her as you do Aaron Rodgers in that ‘she must be interesting if people are talking about her’?
Of course it applies, that's why people report it... Different scenario though huh? People watch the football games (mostly) for the game, not for Swift. People watch McAfee for Rodgers.
Unless youre trying for some different angle trying to own me?
tony dungy still trying to cancel taylor swift. i bet he gets himself canceled from his commentator job before this is all over.
He has a point though. You know how many people are tired of hearing about Taylor Swift, lol?
only because she isn't trying to give them some. she has drawn new fans to the game, so that is good for the nfl. as far as her being a distraction, these guys are professional athletes in their 20s and 30s. if a cute woman shows up at their game and they get distracted, that is on the players and their immaturity. not taylor swift. it's not high school, lol.
does she get credit because they won sunday?
As long as she got credit for them losing the other times she went too, sure, lol.
There are people that don't give two shits about Taylor Swift and want to watch football. There is a bunch of coverage on her being there, what she wears, etc.
It doesn't bother me as I like Taylor Swift as an artist and person but the fact that she tilts her head a certain way and it makes the news as coverage is silly...
You don’t apply the same logic to her as you do Aaron Rodgers in that ‘she must be interesting if people are talking about her’?
Of course it applies, that's why people report it... Different scenario though huh? People watch the football games (mostly) for the game, not for Swift. People watch McAfee for Rodgers.
Unless youre trying for some different angle trying to own me?
Swifties are tuning into the NFL, buying merch and going to games because of Taylor, so how would that be any different than people tuning into McAfee just for AR? From that perspective the two scenarios are quite similar, no? Promoting each person appeals to a niche audience, so where's the difference? (It's not as if McAfee's show didn't exist before Rodgers or outside of his weekly appearances)
Sure, you can argue the majority of people aren't tuning into NFL games to see Tay Tay, but likewise, I can't imagine many people are tuning into ESPN for foolish vaccine conspiracies or to hear talk about the Epstein list.
I think the attention paid to both is dumb, but I also understand our society loves vapid shit like who's dating who or some dumb athlete's views on vaccine shedding & spike proteins.
tony dungy still trying to cancel taylor swift. i bet he gets himself canceled from his commentator job before this is all over.
He has a point though. You know how many people are tired of hearing about Taylor Swift, lol?
only because she isn't trying to give them some. she has drawn new fans to the game, so that is good for the nfl. as far as her being a distraction, these guys are professional athletes in their 20s and 30s. if a cute woman shows up at their game and they get distracted, that is on the players and their immaturity. not taylor swift. it's not high school, lol.
does she get credit because they won sunday?
As long as she got credit for them losing the other times she went too, sure, lol.
There are people that don't give two shits about Taylor Swift and want to watch football. There is a bunch of coverage on her being there, what she wears, etc.
It doesn't bother me as I like Taylor Swift as an artist and person but the fact that she tilts her head a certain way and it makes the news as coverage is silly...
You don’t apply the same logic to her as you do Aaron Rodgers in that ‘she must be interesting if people are talking about her’?
Of course it applies, that's why people report it... Different scenario though huh? People watch the football games (mostly) for the game, not for Swift. People watch McAfee for Rodgers.
Unless youre trying for some different angle trying to own me?
Swifties are tuning into the NFL, buying merch and going to games because of Taylor, so how would that be any different than people tuning into McAfee just for AR? From that perspective the two scenarios are quite similar, no? Promoting each person appeals to a niche audience, so where's the difference? (It's not as if McAfee's show didn't exist before Rodgers or outside of his weekly appearances)
Sure, you can argue the majority of people aren't tuning into NFL games to see Tay Tay, but likewise, I can't imagine many people are tuning into ESPN for foolish vaccine conspiracies or to hear talk about the Epstein list.
I think the attention paid to both is dumb, but I also understand our society loves vapid shit like who's dating who or some dumb athlete's views on vaccine shedding & spike proteins.
Once/if Swift and Kelce break up those fans won't give fukall about the NFL. People will still tune into Mcafee for Rodgers' take though. That's proven.
I'm in agreement with what people find as "must Watch", lol.
I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped. He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc. I watching the video... it's pretty fucked.
The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning.
One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this...
Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:
"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it) But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."
This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..." and then proceed to say something racist.
I believe in Free Speech. What he said is protected speech. But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.
(???)
I don't disagree with her... by any means. But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."
Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech. Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating.
Toronto 2000
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013 Toronto I&II 2016 10C: 220xxx
I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped. He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc. I watching the video... it's pretty fucked.
The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning.
One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this...
Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:
"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it) But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."
This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..." and then proceed to say something racist.
I believe in Free Speech. What he said is protected speech. But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.
(???)
I don't disagree with her... by any means. But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."
Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech. Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating.
Speech has consequences. The voters can vote him out or members of the public can shout shame at him while he sits at a table in a restaurant trying to enjoy his meal. Or any other public place.
I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped. He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc. I watching the video... it's pretty fucked.
The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning.
One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this...
Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:
"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it) But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."
This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..." and then proceed to say something racist.
I believe in Free Speech. What he said is protected speech. But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.
(???)
I don't disagree with her... by any means. But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."
Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech. Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating.
I’m having a hard time following your train of thought. You see it analogous to “I’m not a racist but” and at the same time you agree with her? It’s essentially a workplace, and certain language and statements aren’t tolerated. Typically because adults are expected to follow social norms. It has nothing to do with 1st Amendment rights until the government decides to make certain speech illegal (making threats, etc).
I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped. He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc. I watching the video... it's pretty fucked.
The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning.
One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this...
Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:
"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it) But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."
This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..." and then proceed to say something racist.
I believe in Free Speech. What he said is protected speech. But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.
(???)
I don't disagree with her... by any means. But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."
Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech. Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating.
I’m having a hard time following your train of thought. You see it analogous to “I’m not a racist but” and at the same time you agree with her? It’s essentially a workplace, and certain language and statements aren’t tolerated. Typically because adults are expected to follow social norms. It has nothing to do with 1st Amendment rights until the government decides to make certain speech illegal (making threats, etc).
So I guess what I'm intrigued by is the lady's need to cite 'Hey I'm all for Free Speech... however...' Drawing that unnecessary parallel is well... unnecessary. To me it's like she's trying to be for and against something at the same time.
She could have just said 'what he said is wrong and there should be consequences.'
Toronto 2000
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013 Toronto I&II 2016 10C: 220xxx
I understand freedom of speech to mean the government can’t punish an individual for speech. My company however, a private corporation can fire me for my speech. They have a code of standards / ethics they expect me to uphold, which is their right. Should a governing body not similarly have a code of standards / ethics for their members?
I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped. He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc. I watching the video... it's pretty fucked.
The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning.
One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this...
Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:
"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it) But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."
This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..." and then proceed to say something racist.
I believe in Free Speech. What he said is protected speech. But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.
(???)
I don't disagree with her... by any means. But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."
Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech. Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating.
Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?
the State senator doing the reading was, to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped. He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc. I watching the video... it's pretty fucked.
The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning.
One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this...
Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:
"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it) But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."
This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..." and then proceed to say something racist.
I believe in Free Speech. What he said is protected speech. But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.
(???)
I don't disagree with her... by any means. But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."
Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech. Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating.
Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?
the State senator doing the reading was, to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.
remarkably out of bounds. I agree with everything she said in response... I just don't get her need to announce before she goes into her opinion her stance on Free Speech.
If anything, I'm surprised they (State Legislation) don't have a code of conduct and/or workplace harassment policy in place that could be enforced here. What the doosh said to me would certainly fall under workplace harassment.
Toronto 2000
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013 Toronto I&II 2016 10C: 220xxx
I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped. He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc. I watching the video... it's pretty fucked.
The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning.
One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this...
Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:
"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it) But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."
This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..." and then proceed to say something racist.
I believe in Free Speech. What he said is protected speech. But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.
(???)
I don't disagree with her... by any means. But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."
Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech. Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating.
Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?
the State senator doing the reading was, to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.
remarkably out of bounds. I agree with everything she said in response... I just don't get her need to announce before she goes into her opinion her stance on Free Speech.
If anything, I'm surprised they (State Legislation) don't have a code of conduct and/or workplace harassment policy in place that could be enforced here. What the doosh said to me would certainly fall under workplace harassment.
She is D in a R majority senate. And they aren't rules of decorum as she stated.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped. He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc. I watching the video... it's pretty fucked.
The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning.
One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this...
Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:
"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it) But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."
This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..." and then proceed to say something racist.
I believe in Free Speech. What he said is protected speech. But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.
(???)
I don't disagree with her... by any means. But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."
Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech. Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating.
Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?
the State senator doing the reading was, to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.
Then the book should be out of bounds too.
You can't pick and choose what is or isn't out of bounds but people can vote them out for saying stupid shit.
I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped. He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc. I watching the video... it's pretty fucked.
The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning.
One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this...
Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:
"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it) But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."
This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..." and then proceed to say something racist.
I believe in Free Speech. What he said is protected speech. But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.
(???)
I don't disagree with her... by any means. But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."
Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech. Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating.
Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?
the State senator doing the reading was, to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.
Then the book should be out of bounds too.
You can't pick and choose what is or isn't out of bounds but people can vote them out for saying stupid shit.
oh so official legislative sessions , national or state should be a fucking free for all?
no. I demand a higher standard of conduct from elected officials engaged in official business, on the record.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped. He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc. I watching the video... it's pretty fucked.
The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning.
One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this...
Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:
"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it) But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."
This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..." and then proceed to say something racist.
I believe in Free Speech. What he said is protected speech. But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.
(???)
I don't disagree with her... by any means. But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."
Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech. Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating.
Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?
the State senator doing the reading was, to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.
Then the book should be out of bounds too.
You can't pick and choose what is or isn't out of bounds but people can vote them out for saying stupid shit.
oh so official legislative sessions , national or state should be a fucking free for all?
no. I demand a higher standard of conduct from elected officials engaged in official business, on the record.
Unfortunately that cat was let out of the bag a long time ago.
I agree with you that our elected leaders should have more couth but that's not happening.
I do hate when people toe the line of free speech and use it in less than genuine ways.
I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped. He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc. I watching the video... it's pretty fucked.
The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning.
One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this...
Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:
"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it) But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."
This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..." and then proceed to say something racist.
I believe in Free Speech. What he said is protected speech. But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.
(???)
I don't disagree with her... by any means. But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."
Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech. Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating.
Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?
the State senator doing the reading was, to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.
Then the book should be out of bounds too.
You can't pick and choose what is or isn't out of bounds but people can vote them out for saying stupid shit.
oh so official legislative sessions , national or state should be a fucking free for all?
no. I demand a higher standard of conduct from elected officials engaged in official business, on the record.
Unfortunately that cat was let out of the bag a long time ago.
I agree with you that our elected leaders should have more couth but that's not happening.
I do hate when people toe the line of free speech and use it in less than genuine ways.
so bravo to her for calling it out, because that what was said, there are no rules of decorum in that specific body..... and there should be.
now I think she should file sexual harassment civil suit.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped. He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc. I watching the video... it's pretty fucked.
The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning.
One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this...
Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:
"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it) But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."
This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..." and then proceed to say something racist.
I believe in Free Speech. What he said is protected speech. But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.
(???)
I don't disagree with her... by any means. But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."
Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech. Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating.
Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?
the State senator doing the reading was, to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.
Then the book should be out of bounds too.
You can't pick and choose what is or isn't out of bounds but people can vote them out for saying stupid shit.
oh so official legislative sessions , national or state should be a fucking free for all?
no. I demand a higher standard of conduct from elected officials engaged in official business, on the record.
Unfortunately that cat was let out of the bag a long time ago.
I agree with you that our elected leaders should have more couth but that's not happening.
I do hate when people toe the line of free speech and use it in less than genuine ways.
so bravo to her for calling it out, because that what was said, there are no rules of decorum in that specific body..... and there should be.
now I think she should file sexual harassment civil suit.
In doing that wouldn't you be agreeing that the book has no merit then?
I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped. He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc. I watching the video... it's pretty fucked.
The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning.
One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this...
Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:
"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it) But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."
This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..." and then proceed to say something racist.
I believe in Free Speech. What he said is protected speech. But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.
(???)
I don't disagree with her... by any means. But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."
Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech. Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating.
Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?
the State senator doing the reading was, to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.
Then the book should be out of bounds too.
You can't pick and choose what is or isn't out of bounds but people can vote them out for saying stupid shit.
oh so official legislative sessions , national or state should be a fucking free for all?
no. I demand a higher standard of conduct from elected officials engaged in official business, on the record.
Unfortunately that cat was let out of the bag a long time ago.
I agree with you that our elected leaders should have more couth but that's not happening.
I do hate when people toe the line of free speech and use it in less than genuine ways.
so bravo to her for calling it out, because that what was said, there are no rules of decorum in that specific body..... and there should be.
now I think she should file sexual harassment civil suit.
In doing that wouldn't you be agreeing that the book has no merit then?
I was thinking the same thing. They are kind of proving his point, if an adult is being sexual harassed by having this book read to her, maybe it shouldn't be part of the school curriculum? My guess is there will be future lawsuits for harassing students forcing them to read this book if this goes through.
Now, I don't necessarily agree with his strategy, but it's kind of hard to argue against his point.
I'm somewhat following an interesting... albeit disturbing ... story out of Nebraska whereby a male republican State Senator named Steve Halloran (doosh) verbally cited a book he didn't agree with because it was being shared in schools and it depicted a woman being raped. He read a rape scene out loud in session and kept on adding the name of a democrat female colleague who happened to be against book banning and for LGBTQ rights etc. I watching the video... it's pretty fucked.
The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning.
One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this...
Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:
"I believe in the freedom of speech and I know that the speech on this floor is protected speech. (RE: Halloran's reading of the rape scene with the other Senator's name in it) But it is misguided to think that there is a same thing between appropriate speech and protected speech... but no, it is not appropriate.. and no it should not be tolerated. And to Senator Salma's point, we should have a mechanism to address inappropriate speech but we don't and we have failed ourselves. And we have failed Nebraska in that point."
This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..." and then proceed to say something racist.
I believe in Free Speech. What he said is protected speech. But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.
(???)
I don't disagree with her... by any means. But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."
Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech. Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating.
Would you agree that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech?
the State senator doing the reading was, to me , reading a rape fantasy, which included a colleague by name and that to me is out of bounds.
Then the book should be out of bounds too.
You can't pick and choose what is or isn't out of bounds but people can vote them out for saying stupid shit.
oh so official legislative sessions , national or state should be a fucking free for all?
no. I demand a higher standard of conduct from elected officials engaged in official business, on the record.
Unfortunately that cat was let out of the bag a long time ago.
I agree with you that our elected leaders should have more couth but that's not happening.
I do hate when people toe the line of free speech and use it in less than genuine ways.
so bravo to her for calling it out, because that what was said, there are no rules of decorum in that specific body..... and there should be.
now I think she should file sexual harassment civil suit.
In doing that wouldn't you be agreeing that the book has no merit then?
I was thinking the same thing. They are kind of proving his point, if an adult is being sexual harassed by having this book read to her, maybe it shouldn't be part of the school curriculum? My guess is there will be future lawsuits for harassing students forcing them to read this book if this goes through.
Now, I don't necessarily agree with his strategy, but it's kind of hard to argue against his point.
Is reading a book out loud sexual harassment? Wow.
It's not libel but you are right. If you take it to that level then I guess everything is offensive and we should all sue each other whenever we speak.
pretty sure her objection to this as was shared above is in the fact her name was inserted into the text being read. that there should have be some measure of decorum in general or by rule in that chamber.
so you tell me, what fucking point was there to insert the name of someone present in that chamber into the recitation of a fictional story? why was that act germaine to the broader point attempting to be made?
one thing we dont know is what the school this book was found in? HS? Middle School? Hard pressed to believe it was available to elementary level students.
I dare Mace to read such a story at his workplace and insert the name of a female colleague and see what happens.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
pretty sure her objection to this as was shared above is in the fact her name was inserted into the text being read. that there should have be some measure of decorum in general or by rule in that chamber.
so you tell me, what fucking point was there to insert the name of someone present in that chamber into the recitation of a fictional story? why was that act germaine to the broader point attempting to be made?
one thing we dont know is what the school this book was found in? HS? Middle School? Hard pressed to believe it was available to elementary level students.
I dare Mace to read such a story at his workplace and insert the name of a female colleague and see what happens.
if mace works in a red district, they may nominate him for congress...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
pretty sure her objection to this as was shared above is in the fact her name was inserted into the text being read. that there should have be some measure of decorum in general or by rule in that chamber.
so you tell me, what fucking point was there to insert the name of someone present in that chamber into the recitation of a fictional story? why was that act germaine to the broader point attempting to be made?
one thing we dont know is what the school this book was found in? HS? Middle School? Hard pressed to believe it was available to elementary level students.
I dare Mace to read such a story at his workplace and insert the name of a female colleague and see what happens.
I wouldn't read a book like that out loud at work with or without inserting a name. I doubt you would either. I already agreed that it was bad and he should not have done that. So I'm unsure what your point was by asking that. I read the description, but I originally took it as he just kept calling her name and reading it to her. But reading it again it sound like he made her the character in the book? My only point was is if it's that offensive, where reading it out loud (inserting a name or not) rises to the level of sexual harassment, then maybe it doesn't belong in a school. There ar millions of other books available. I can't say I disagree. If the words on those pages equate to sexual harassment, then maybe they shouldn't be available to 13 and 14 year olds. You can't give a kid a Tylenol without parent permission, you can't discuss religion or politics from a personal perspective because the kids can't handle it, but you can have them read what some consider sexual harassment when read aloud?
pretty sure her objection to this as was shared above is in the fact her name was inserted into the text being read. that there should have be some measure of decorum in general or by rule in that chamber.
so you tell me, what fucking point was there to insert the name of someone present in that chamber into the recitation of a fictional story? why was that act germaine to the broader point attempting to be made?
one thing we dont know is what the school this book was found in? HS? Middle School? Hard pressed to believe it was available to elementary level students.
I dare Mace to read such a story at his workplace and insert the name of a female colleague and see what happens.
if mace works in a red district, they may nominate him for congress...
Comments
many things have come to the market as innovations in ortheopaedic surgery that end up having terrible outcomes long term. i remember back in 1998 thermal assisted tissue shrinkage with a laser was all the rage for shoulder instability/dislocations and chronic ankle instability. it was rushed to the market with no long term outcome data, and then all of these people that had their loose shoulders tightened with the laser had their joint capsules stretch out and then their shoulders were more unstable than before the surgery. not only that, but the nerve receptors in the tissue that sense motion and movement were fried so their shoulders were unable to be repaired after that. that company got sued for hundreds of millions of dollars. also the hip joints with metal heads on metal shells and liners were spectacular failures. they worked well initially but long term the metal broke down and made people sick. both examples were way before i started in the industry though. back when i was still in grad school or early in my career. i think the fda is taking a harder look at new technology and new potential treatment modalities these days.
i think that the stem cells are used with cells from an aborted fetus or something. i am not certain, but i think steve scalise, big pro life republican, got in big trouble a few weeks ago for opposing stem cells for everyone else while getting stem cell treatment on himself.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
does she get credit because they won sunday?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
There are people that don't give two shits about Taylor Swift and want to watch football. There is a bunch of coverage on her being there, what she wears, etc.
It doesn't bother me as I like Taylor Swift as an artist and person but the fact that she tilts her head a certain way and it makes the news as coverage is silly...
Unless youre trying for some different angle trying to own me?
Sure, you can argue the majority of people aren't tuning into NFL games to see Tay Tay, but likewise, I can't imagine many people are tuning into ESPN for foolish vaccine conspiracies or to hear talk about the Epstein list.
I think the attention paid to both is dumb, but I also understand our society loves vapid shit like who's dating who or some dumb athlete's views on vaccine shedding & spike proteins.
I'm in agreement with what people find as "must Watch", lol.
The response has been as expected... people wanting the male senator to resign etc and the senator not resigning.
One of the responses from a different Senator in the chamber.... I find so very intriguing... is this...
Her name is Machaela Cavanaugh and she said this in response:
This reminds me of people who say "I'm no racist, however..." and then proceed to say something racist.
I believe in Free Speech.
What he said is protected speech.
But it shouldn't be tolerated and we should be able to punish him for it.
(???)
I don't disagree with her... by any means. But what she is saying here is an example of how we as a society blur the lines of all of our "freedoms."
Freedom of Speech in many ways by legal precedence is actually Freedom of Limited Speech. Which ... by some definitions is not Freedom of Speech at all. Fascinating.
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013
Toronto I&II 2016
10C: 220xxx
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
She could have just said 'what he said is wrong and there should be consequences.'
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013
Toronto I&II 2016
10C: 220xxx
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
If anything, I'm surprised they (State Legislation) don't have a code of conduct and/or workplace harassment policy in place that could be enforced here. What the doosh said to me would certainly fall under workplace harassment.
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013
Toronto I&II 2016
10C: 220xxx
She is D in a R majority senate. And they aren't rules of decorum as she stated.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
You can't pick and choose what is or isn't out of bounds but people can vote them out for saying stupid shit.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I agree with you that our elected leaders should have more couth but that's not happening.
I do hate when people toe the line of free speech and use it in less than genuine ways.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Now, I don't necessarily agree with his strategy, but it's kind of hard to argue against his point.
"that makes me a saaaaaad panda...."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It's not libel but you are right. If you take it to that level then I guess everything is offensive and we should all sue each other whenever we speak.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I already agreed that it was bad and he should not have done that. So I'm unsure what your point was by asking that.
I read the description, but I originally took it as he just kept calling her name and reading it to her. But reading it again it sound like he made her the character in the book?
My only point was is if it's that offensive, where reading it out loud (inserting a name or not) rises to the level of sexual harassment, then maybe it doesn't belong in a school. There ar millions of other books available. I can't say I disagree. If the words on those pages equate to sexual harassment, then maybe they shouldn't be available to 13 and 14 year olds. You can't give a kid a Tylenol without parent permission, you can't discuss religion or politics from a personal perspective because the kids can't handle it, but you can have them read what some consider sexual harassment when read aloud?