IGotWorms

I’m going to see the smashing pumpkins tour this summer

Kraft is a rub and tug creep. Probably had Myra offed so he could go after those underage Thai girls

Penix is your boy then. He’s got a cannon. Nix, a pea shooter

Well he is damn near 80

NFL or playoff hockey.

It’s pretty weak. Extortion is a crime so it’s pretty weird that you would pay someone off for committing a crime against you and then demand that they keep it a secret

Yeah that’s a good reminder as well

Seems risky to me, though maybe they don’t have a choice. But if no focking, what was the NDA for? Sure in theory you might do one even though it’s not true, but I think pretty much everyone would agree that there’s a strong presumption you’re trying to keep it secret because it IS true

I tried telling HT but, as usual, he couldn’t absorb anything even potentially negative about his master

I don’t know what the purpose of all this junk is, but generally speaking, HR is not anyone’s friend. They are there to protect the organization and that’s it. No one should ever forget that

They want to move up to 3 in the worst way but the Patriots are asking too much. Or that’s the media story anyway. I could see them moving up for McCarthy. But shoot, even then they might have to jump to #4. After that seems like there’s a big dropoff to Penix and Nix. Wouldn’t be surprised if neither is taken in the first round.

Clearly. Whats funny is Trump basically abandoned them. Showed up for the speaker. Backed off his opposition. But they haven’t caught up and are still carrying his anti-Ukraine water

Good we needed another thread on this

What say you? Helen Cruz racked up more than $2,000 in fines for sleeping in Grants Pass parks when she was homeless for about six years but now lives at a church feeding others who live on the southern Oregon city’s streets. Almost half of Cruz’s fines came in 2022 alone when police cited her four times for illegal camping or scattering rubbish, court records show. Cruz’s experiences will be at the center of arguments Monday before the U.S. Supreme Court that all sides say encompass the most significant case to address homelessness in more than four decades. About 600,000 people are homeless in the United States, with about 256,000 living outside on any given night, according to federal counts. The case has drawn more than 80 friend-of-the-court briefs from leaders of both liberal and conservative-led cities, homeless advocacy groups, public health and mental health professionals, professors, law enforcement agencies and religious groups. Cruz is flying to Washington, D.C., to speak at a “Housing, not Handcuffs” rally outside the Supreme Court, arguing that affordable housing, rental assistance, outreach and more shelters are the solutions to address the nation’s homelessness crisis. Advocates for homeless people want the court to uphold a ruling that barred Grants Pass from punishing people with citations, fines, arrests or jail for sleeping in public when they have no access to an alternative shelter. “The city’s enforcement scheme is unconstitutional,” said Ed Johnson, who brought the case in Grants Pass as litigation director of Oregon Law Center after working nearly 30 years as a legal aid attorney. “Punishing the victims of our failed housing policies will not solve homelessness. It will make it worse. It will increase the number of people unable to get inside.” But cities along the West Coast and across the country that are struggling with burgeoning homeless populations are pressing the Supreme Court to set narrower restrictions. More: https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2024/04/supreme-court-to-hear-grants-pass-homeless-case-monday-whats-at-stake.html?outputType=amp

I have to say, “The Tortured Poets Department” is mighty presumptuous. You’re a billionaire pop star, sweetheart. Not a focking tortured artist

Yeah I can get on board with all of that One possible exception is building back up mental hospitals. I believe that was the 70s where they started getting shut down and it was due to concerns over civil liberties, essentially. Involuntary commitments take away a persons freedom, of course, and in a situation where they haven’t even done anything criminal (or at least they’re not being prosecuted directly for that). You had situations where people wanted to get rid of the old ball and chain so they’re drive her batty then have her committed. Or the mentally challenged would be committed merely just for that. And so on and so forth. Plus the conditions were generally pretty bad because it’s actually quite expensive to provide living and high quality care (see the cost of a good nursing home, for example). So you ended up with unsanitary and awful conditions plus low paid horrible psycho workers who would abuse the patients because why else would they take such a sh1tty job? So I think that was an undesirable system and a return to that wouldn’t be a great idea, but certainly doesn’t mean that they couldn’t try something else because certainly a lot of the times mental illness and/or addiction is at play.

A better (less convoluted) article on this case: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/20/us/supreme-court-homelessness-oregon.html

No, my point was they’re not mutually exclusive. It is possible to beat back an aggressive Russia while also providing shelter for America’s homeless. Especially since we’re the richest and greatest country the world has ever seen? Or do republicans no longer agree with that part?

It’s pretty pathetic at this point. Once or twice? Sure it could happen. Every single time in every single forum possible (election, debates, media, trials, etc etc) for nearly a decade? Only the biggest rube in the world would believe that

Can you walk and chew gum at the same time?

That’s not entirely false but also not really true. The town at issue in this Supreme Court case has no homeless shelter. And it’s a town of 40,000 people

I thought he was pretty good on a relatively recent episode of Curb

Was Jane Fonda president?

As I understand there are audio recordings and testimony of several others, plus a jury can rely on circumstantial evidence and draw inferences. I think it’s a pretty strong case even with cohen’s substantial credibility issues, but I suppose we’ll find out