Taro T

As mentioned in an earlier post, my recollection was of the '80 opener, not the playoff game in '90.

One section of goalpost may have ended up there. Another section ended up at the top of the upper deck. The drunks that carried it up there were shouting at the people leaving the stadium to get them to move back so they could throw it over into the concourse. Security took that section from them and there it lay 3 rows from the top of the stadium until well after everybody had filed out of Rich. Ironically, the replacement goal posts were made by a Miami-based comoany.

Are you referring to the 1980 Fish game? If so, No, they did not throw them over the top of the stadium. They WANTED to & brought a goalpost up into the upper deck, but security kept them from tossing it over. A couple of other sections of goalpost did make it into the parking lot, but not after being tossed over the stadium. They would've killed someone filing out of the stadium if they had.

So, basically, don't expect anyone to claim responsibility. Realizing it would just be speculation, but do you think this was due to somebody not getting a big enough share of the spoils & this was more personal or was it due to somebody upset w/ the way the pawns were laid out on the geopolitical chess board?

Has anybody claimed responsibility yet?

Well, in fairness, the guy making that statementis an Hollywood actor. Relatively speaking, astronauts nearly are humble.

Really? Good to see they're taking their jobs seriously.

Not a fan of him starting behind this line, especially if Ducasse is still starting come week 1. But if he looks good today, it is a no brainer to give him the keys against the Ravens.

Have a pretty good idea of where you're getting the non-bolded stuff. Personally haven't seen any direct evidence of any of it, but am fairly certain that the sources of those opinions is known. As to the bolded, what specifically are you referring to? Candidate Trump's line about asking Russia for "Crooked Hillary's e-mails, or something other? If it was the line about the e-mails, how did they magically appear the next day? We still haven't seen them. (Though Mr. Huner might have.) Not trying to be argumentative; just genuinely curious.

Well, suppose there's that too. But that gets dicey. If you fear the plotters would become martyrs & cause the masses to see the justness of the cause & just how injust the government is, then you really don't want to execute them (at least publicly & officially) for fear of adding to the rebellion. Of course, exiling or jailing just adds to their resolve. Probably why most repressive regimes choose a variant of the bolded as the answer: take them all out covertly & then suppress the media coverage.

Actually, pretty sure the answer will be "Muslim ban" and "border wall." Likely w/ an assortment of other ideas that were tweaked by the media enough to sound a lot different than what they are. Followed by a flourish of tweets, which in fairness, really do come across poorly quite often.

Purely speculation, but would expect a large part of that is that the people suffering the most were the biggest supporters of Chavez & his nationalization policies. To turn on his successor would actually require some introspection. That, & the last time a coup was attempted it did not go well. Those that would be best suited to organize & lead another are no longer available. Certainly, there's a lot more than just that, but those would seem to be major factors.

Your point on free speech is weak at best. There were several legitimate reasons for his clearance to be revoked as outlined in the WH announcement that made the revocation public. As for discussing Wilbur Ross, why should we be discussing himin a thread dedicated to Brennan's security clearance being revoked.

How is revoking his security clearance revoking his right to free speech? By definition, he can only disclose the top secret information he recieves via the clearance to others with the same clearance (or higher) level. (& really doubt there's a clearance level higher than that which he held.)

Michael Stipe wearing a kilt R.E.M. (aka Shiny Happy People period) absolutely chew. Michael Stipe too uncomfortable w/ his vocals that the background tracks are louder than his vocal track R.E.M. (aka South Central Rain period) not even close.

I'd disagree. Seems the judge handled the whole thing properly. He let the journalists make their case, found out it didn't have enough merit to outweigh keeping the jurors anonymous, & then promptly (& properly IMHO) turned it down.

Don't believe that was a tribute payment from Papi to Salamanca but actually the original payment that Salamanca gave to him to start using his business as a cover for shipping his drugs over the border. (Thus spreading it out into 3 piles like Hector had when he gave it to him.) He HAD to take the money when Hector gave it to him but he didn't want anything to do with it and never spent it. Hector had wanted to use the upholstering trucks to transport the drugs but Don Iladio (sp?) had him continue to use the chicken trucks. And Hector would have been paying for the use of the trucks. Thus the "you're going to make a lot of money" when he showed up at the shop the 1st day.

FISA warrants (w/ the 2 skip openness & ability to review stuff beyond the simple timeline) or regular old-fashioned search warrants just on the particular individuals/devices?

Wish you did too. With your passion, you could probably be a great advocate.

There have been Democrats wanting to shut down Fox News & other conservative sites since at least 43's 1st term. They were wrong then & unsuccessful. They are wrong now & I expect will continue to be unsuccessful. 1 way they definitely will be unsuccessful is by beating those in government! or wishing to be there! who would censor the other side at the ballot box. As for non-government platforms that shut 1/2 their audience down, that's an awful lot of customers to tick off. A competitor will come along. As said earlier, hopefully that/those competitors don't simply serve only conservatives (or whomeveris being shunned) but allow for a full range of ideas to be expressed on their platform. Those should ultimately be the platforms that win.

10 years is a long time, the "next big thing" will likely show up significantly faster. 10 years was chosen because it is IMHO extremely likely that something will have supplanted at least 1 or both of Facebook & Twitter by then. Remember, the Democrats have likely taken a huge funding hit in the Janus decision. All this stuff is fluid & I, for 1, would prefer we not create criminality where none has existed. Because, once that precedent has been set; there is no turning back IMHO & we will all have lost.

Anybody being "denied a platform" can either switch to another or create their own. Hopefully the next platform that fills the void of one w/out a thumb on the scale actually doesn't have a thumb on the scale for the other guys & plays it clean. If they do, w/in 10 years they'll replace Facebook & Facebook will have replaced Myspace. As long as the government doesn't get to pick the winners & losers via net neutrality or worse, someone will come along w/ a better service. Even if the government tries to step in, somebody will do it better than what's out there now.

And working across both sides of the aisle as Vin Weber was referred as well. One more of your earlier observations/predictions coming to fruition.

Umm, doesn't "single payer" mean private insurance isn't an option?