All Activity

I thought Ben & Jerry were all about the real full fat experience. Doesn't R.F. "Beef Tallow" Kennedy Jr. like that?

Butch Rolle is coming out of retirement to catch nothing but touchdowns and then give you a wedgie

We were cool twenty years ago…, 🤣

Justice Thomas Destroys the Case for Nationwide Injunctions With One Devastating Question Matt Margolis During Supreme Court oral arguments in the Trump v. CASA, Washington, and New Jersey cases, Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a surgical takedown of the legal rationale for nationwide injunctions, using just one line. The case centers around whether lower courts can issue sweeping injunctions that block federal policies nationwide, even when only a handful of plaintiffs are before the court. Representing the United States, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that such broad orders violate established legal norms and Supreme Court precedent. “We believe that the best reading of that is what you said in Trump against Hawaii, which is that Wirtz in 1963 was really the first universal injunction,” Sauer told the Court. “There’s a dispute about Perkins against Lukens Oil going back to 1940. And of course, we point to the Court’s opinion that reversed that universal injunction issued by the D.C. Circuit and said it’s profoundly wrong.” Sauer continued, listing key precedents that have rejected expansive injunctive relief. “If you look at the cases that either party cite, you see a common theme. The cases that we cite — like National Treasury Employees Union, Perkins, Frothingham, and Massachusetts v. Mellon, going back to Scott v. Donald — in all of those, those are cases where the Court considered and addressed the sort of universal — well, in that case, statewide — provision of injunctive relief.” He emphasized, “When the Court has considered and addressed this, it has consistently said, ‘You have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs appearing in court and complaining of that remedy.’” That’s when Justice Thomas stepped in and cut through the legal weeds with a devastatingly simple observation. “So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunction?” he asked. Sauer didn’t hesitate: “That’s exactly correct. And in fact, those were very limited, very rare, even in the 1960s.” He went on to explain that nationwide injunctions didn’t truly explode until 2007. “In our cert petition in Summers v. Rhode Island Institute, we pointed out that the Ninth Circuit had started doing this in a whole bunch of cases involving environmental claims.” Thomas’s concise question — “So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunction?” — hit the heart of the issue. With that simple question, he challenged the idea that such drastic judicial remedies were historically essential, even during one of the most tumultuous and morally urgent periods in American history: the civil rights era, a time when federal courts began issuing broader remedies to dismantle Jim Crow laws and enforce desegregation. https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/05/15/justice-thomas-destroys-case-for-nationwide-injunctions-with-one-devastating-question-n4939815

I thought this answer might have come up sooner. My pizza will sit on the counter as I graze off of it after the initial meal. Eventually I stop grazing, and the box ends up in the trash in the morning. No food safety issues in my experience, and I’ve been doing it a long time. I know where I got my last delivered pizza from (the guy’s originally from Grand Island), but I’m not sure how many years it’s been. If the wife mostly just eats pizza we make at home. Other than that it’s a cheap lunch to stop for a slice. That’s all the pizza I need.

W can crown billstime The King of Derangement.

Yea agree. I don't think it is at all the case that you always see signs the previous year. It often happens fast. I'm not saying it will happen to Henry. But I would not be shocked if this year he gets nicked up and slows some and isn't the force of 2024.

Wasn't he also our FB, when rarely used?

You've chosen to ignore content by Homelander. Options You've chosen to ignore content by Homelander. Options You've chosen to ignore content by Homelander. Options You've chosen to ignore content by Homelander. Options You've chosen to ignore content by Homelander. Options You've chosen to ignore content by Homelander. Options You've chosen to ignore content by Homelander. Options You've chosen to ignore content by Homelander. Options

I heard that they said that. Then I happened to catch CNN and they had someone on there who talked to a person who was in the room when the negotiations went down with Rubio. And CNN wouldn't lie for Trump's benefit. Which makes me wonder why India would lie?

I live in Northern NY, but our daughter lives in SC. We are planning on going to visit her and attend the Carolina game. Are there any Carolina Bills Backers groups that do a group of tickets? That would save us watching prices, etc. Plus we'd be sitting with other Bills fans. Any advice is great ... thanks!

.

Thank you. Back to pain and despair I can go

Media Makes Jaw-Dropping Admission About Fear of Tariffs As Trump Polls Start to Rise Again Nick Arama Remember how we were told the economy would blow up with President Donald Trump's tariff efforts? But then we saw deals with the U.K. and China. The Trump team was finally able to get China to the table on trade, which is a pretty amazing result. The April inflation number was, again, less than expected, the lowest in four years. Grocery prices also had the biggest decline in five years. Now, the media is admitting something that's patently obvious, at least right now: what we were being told just hasn't come to pass. Axios was out with a story on Thursday titled, "Hard data suggests tariff-driven inflation and recession fears may be overblown." They note that with April numbers in, none of the things warned about have come to pass. Not only are retail sales steady, but even wholesale prices have dropped: https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2025/05/15/what-media-is-saying-now-about-tariffs-trump-polls-rising-again-n2189138 https://www.axios.com/2025/05/15/tariffs-inflation-recession-data?utm_campaign=editorial&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter .

What about their face on your lower back though?

NO! I’m not talking about BEING committed! (Those records are supposed to be sealed.)

Good on you Quinton ^5

Can I say to start that I had to feel for RFK Jr. right at that point because any sudden actions around a Kennedy would give me pause, given the history of attacks on Kennedys. You can see how startled he is. I'm sure the Capitol Police had to be thinking about that, as well. push play. https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2025/05/14/scary-moment-as-t…right-behind-rfk-jr-during-hearing-from-protesters-n2189095

frankly it was big game Josh, and Gabe just happened to be where some of those balls landed.

This "indica-tes" cannabis. Cannabinoid. Cannabinoidal. These words make me laugh.

Plays >3 Seconds(data from PFF’s distribution data and PFR): 2024: ~18.9% (116/614) of dropbacks over 3 seconds / 2.68 seconds average time to throw / 14 Sacks / 37 QB Hits / 42 Scrambles 2023: ~22% (140/636) of dropbacks over 3 seconds / 2.75 seconds average time to throw / 24 sacks / 77 QB Hits / 48 Scrambles 2022: ~23% (141/614) of dropbacks over 3 seconds / 2.80 seconds average time to throw / 33 sacks / 92 QB Hits / 44 Scrambles 2021: ~24% (151/630) of dropbacks over 3 seconds / 2.83 seconds average time to throw / 26 sacks / 76 QB Hits / 40 Scrambles 2020: ~21% (126/600) of dropbacks over 3 seconds / 2.78 seconds average time to throw / 26 sacks / 67 QB Hits / 35 Scrambles 2019: ~25% (119/477) of dropbacks over 3 seconds / 2.85 seconds average time to throw / 38 sacks / 85 QB Hits / 38 Scrambles 2018: ~27% (108/400) of dropbacks over 3 seconds / 2.90 seconds average time to throw / 29 sacks / 78 QB Hits / 35 Scrambles

my business case for WR investment better than I could type it