- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Eurocat
| Favorite team: | Northwestern  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 17155 |
| Registered on: | 4/4/2004 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
LINK
James Comey, the former director of the F.B.I., was in federal court yesterday to face a charge that he had threatened to kill President Trump. Prosecutors say that when Comey posted an image on social media last year, showing seashells arranged on a beach to read “86 47,” it was “a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President.” The numbers were a combination of the slang term “86,” which means to remove or get rid of, with an apparent reference to Trump, the country’s 47th president.
Calling “86” a death threat would come as a surprise to anyone who has worked in a restaurant kitchen. The number is jargon that came out of soda fountains in the 1930s, meaning, We’ve run out of that item, so strike it from the menu. Before I became a journalist, I was a line cook. After I’d fired the final seafood special, say, I’d yell “86 shrimp” to the servers. It meant: Sell no more of those, please. You may know the number from “The Bear,” the restaurant dramedy. Carmy, the chef, 86s the ravioli. (The dish was taking too long to make and putting the kitchen in the weeds.)
Language evolves. Mafia lore allows that “86” means someone needs to be removed, perhaps permanently — though it’s probably not a term you’ll hear on a RICO wiretap. But when the former F.B.I. director posted his seashells, was he really imagining a presidential assassination?
More and more, the government is seeing political criticism as a threat. It is defining the idea of a threat downward. And Trump didn’t start it. Why is this happening? I called Devlin Barrett, who has covered federal law enforcement for more than 20 years. “Most lawyers would tell you the ‘86’ case is a very far stretch from the types of threat cases that federal prosecutors generally pursue,” he told me. “It’s an instance where the Trump administration is taking a much more aggressive and elastic use of criminal-threat law and applying it to a phrase where there is plenty of disagreement over what it actually means.”
As in threats, so too in prosecutions: Intent matters. “There’s been an across-the-board push within the Trump administration to perceive things as threats and prosecute things as threats that past iterations of the D.O.J. would not have pursued,” Devlin told me. In other words: It is another form of politics.
See link for the rest
James Comey, the former director of the F.B.I., was in federal court yesterday to face a charge that he had threatened to kill President Trump. Prosecutors say that when Comey posted an image on social media last year, showing seashells arranged on a beach to read “86 47,” it was “a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President.” The numbers were a combination of the slang term “86,” which means to remove or get rid of, with an apparent reference to Trump, the country’s 47th president.
Calling “86” a death threat would come as a surprise to anyone who has worked in a restaurant kitchen. The number is jargon that came out of soda fountains in the 1930s, meaning, We’ve run out of that item, so strike it from the menu. Before I became a journalist, I was a line cook. After I’d fired the final seafood special, say, I’d yell “86 shrimp” to the servers. It meant: Sell no more of those, please. You may know the number from “The Bear,” the restaurant dramedy. Carmy, the chef, 86s the ravioli. (The dish was taking too long to make and putting the kitchen in the weeds.)
Language evolves. Mafia lore allows that “86” means someone needs to be removed, perhaps permanently — though it’s probably not a term you’ll hear on a RICO wiretap. But when the former F.B.I. director posted his seashells, was he really imagining a presidential assassination?
More and more, the government is seeing political criticism as a threat. It is defining the idea of a threat downward. And Trump didn’t start it. Why is this happening? I called Devlin Barrett, who has covered federal law enforcement for more than 20 years. “Most lawyers would tell you the ‘86’ case is a very far stretch from the types of threat cases that federal prosecutors generally pursue,” he told me. “It’s an instance where the Trump administration is taking a much more aggressive and elastic use of criminal-threat law and applying it to a phrase where there is plenty of disagreement over what it actually means.”
As in threats, so too in prosecutions: Intent matters. “There’s been an across-the-board push within the Trump administration to perceive things as threats and prosecute things as threats that past iterations of the D.O.J. would not have pursued,” Devlin told me. In other words: It is another form of politics.
See link for the rest
2
Public access tv.
I have been on forums there about fixing my car, other do it yourself things, my favorite pro sports teams, about my home town area, the industry, various fan sites for popular prime time shows and it is rare to see them touch upon actual current politics and if it comes up it is very light and in passing along the lines of "maybe repairing a car wouldn't be so expensive if the Democrats didn't insist on so many taxes " type stuff that mostly goes ignored.
It's also a good place to check up on an item beforee making a purchase. I wanted to know if a new cough medicine that I just learned about but nothing on the internet comes across as trustworthy so just type in "Name of Product Reddit comments" in google and you might get to see what 200 commentators say about something, good, bad, good but too expensive, etc.
Put simply on non current affairs boards, politics, parties, elections very rarely come up for converstiion in my experience.
Now what the political boards are like? I don't know, I don't go to those boards over there, many say they are liberal so take that for what it is.
It's also a good place to check up on an item beforee making a purchase. I wanted to know if a new cough medicine that I just learned about but nothing on the internet comes across as trustworthy so just type in "Name of Product Reddit comments" in google and you might get to see what 200 commentators say about something, good, bad, good but too expensive, etc.
Put simply on non current affairs boards, politics, parties, elections very rarely come up for converstiion in my experience.
Now what the political boards are like? I don't know, I don't go to those boards over there, many say they are liberal so take that for what it is.
re: New SCOTUS ruling shifts 12 house seats to Republicans across the South
Posted by Eurocat on 4/29/26 at 11:57 am to Chuck Barris
"we need a constitutional amendment to do away with partisan gerrymandering forever. "Safe" Democratic districts where you win the primary election (and therefore the general election) by being as leftist as possible and "safe" Republican districts where you win the primary election (and therefore the general election) by being as right wing as possible are a very large part of what's wrong with American politics."
Totally agree. Too bad SCOTUS took a big hard pass on this issue a few years ago (in a case that had nothing to do with race, so this is a different issue).
LINK
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 26, 2019
Decided June 27, 2019
Full case name Robert A. Rucho et al. v. Common Cause et al.
Docket no. 18-422
Holding
Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.
Case opinions
Majority Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
Dissent Kagan, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering.[1] The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.[2]
The case was one of three heard in the 2018 term dealing with issues related to partisan gerrymandering used in the districting plans of states. It was combined with Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina, and its decision included the Court's judgment on Lamone v. Benisek, a partisan gerrymandering case from Maryland.[3] The 5–4 decision, divided along ideological lines, left in place North Carolina's congressional districts, which favored the Republican Party, and Maryland's congressional districts, which favored the Democratic Party.[4]
Background
While the case was challenged at the Supreme Court, the previous chairmen of the state's redistricting committee, State Senator Bob Rucho and Representative David R. Lewis, brought in an expert to help with a new map, while a new redistricting committee was formed by the Republican-favored General Assembly and voted on seven principles for this new map. Among them, the new map would not be developed using any data on racial makeup, but that it would use political makeup to strive to keep the same proportion of voters in each district. Lewis was quoted as saying "I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats, because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats."[5] The District Court approved the 2016 map, and it has been used for both the 2016 and was set to be used in the 2018 general elections.
The Court issued its decision in Rucho and Lamone on June 27, 2019. In the 5–4 majority opinion, the Court ruled that "partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts", vacating and remanding the lower courts' decisions with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.[20] Roberts made clear that partisan gerrymandering can be distasteful and unjust, but that states and Congress have the ability to enact laws to curb excessive partisan gerrymandering.[2]
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Kagan's opinion was critical of the majority: "Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court's role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections. With respect but deep sadness, I dissent."[2]
Totally agree. Too bad SCOTUS took a big hard pass on this issue a few years ago (in a case that had nothing to do with race, so this is a different issue).
LINK
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 26, 2019
Decided June 27, 2019
Full case name Robert A. Rucho et al. v. Common Cause et al.
Docket no. 18-422
Holding
Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.
Case opinions
Majority Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
Dissent Kagan, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering.[1] The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.[2]
The case was one of three heard in the 2018 term dealing with issues related to partisan gerrymandering used in the districting plans of states. It was combined with Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina, and its decision included the Court's judgment on Lamone v. Benisek, a partisan gerrymandering case from Maryland.[3] The 5–4 decision, divided along ideological lines, left in place North Carolina's congressional districts, which favored the Republican Party, and Maryland's congressional districts, which favored the Democratic Party.[4]
Background
While the case was challenged at the Supreme Court, the previous chairmen of the state's redistricting committee, State Senator Bob Rucho and Representative David R. Lewis, brought in an expert to help with a new map, while a new redistricting committee was formed by the Republican-favored General Assembly and voted on seven principles for this new map. Among them, the new map would not be developed using any data on racial makeup, but that it would use political makeup to strive to keep the same proportion of voters in each district. Lewis was quoted as saying "I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats, because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats."[5] The District Court approved the 2016 map, and it has been used for both the 2016 and was set to be used in the 2018 general elections.
The Court issued its decision in Rucho and Lamone on June 27, 2019. In the 5–4 majority opinion, the Court ruled that "partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts", vacating and remanding the lower courts' decisions with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.[20] Roberts made clear that partisan gerrymandering can be distasteful and unjust, but that states and Congress have the ability to enact laws to curb excessive partisan gerrymandering.[2]
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Kagan's opinion was critical of the majority: "Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court's role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections. With respect but deep sadness, I dissent."[2]
But the numbers add up right. I just looked it up and the USA has about 3 million deaths a year and a population of 330 million, so just under 1 percent. Since we can assume NC trends with the country overall that would be 10,000 deaths a year, and some will not be voters, too young, not registerd. The 34,000 figure comes out to about 4-5 years of people passing away and nobody alerting the voting data base, and just "aging out" in a few years when they don't re register.
Sorry I misunderstood.
quote:
I imagine 3 million people die every year of voting age. Guessing at least 2/3rds are registered voters. So 2 million dead people on polls each year. Surprised NC doesn’t have more
North Carolina has only 10 million people so it's not going to be that many. Plus some are just living there and not registered, or retired in NC but stayed on the rolls somewhere else, or are (were) little kids or whatever.
What percentage of the population is registered to vote in any state?
I'm not making excuses for this but I have always wondered, okay, someone from NC (or any state) dies. How does NC or LA or TX or any state - or at least the "voter roll" department find out about it? Unless someone calls up and says "you cancel John Smith from your list, he died last week" he or she will stay on the rolls until it's time to re-register in a few years. Doesn't this just mean that 34,000 people in NC who were registered died and no one reported it (who would think of doing that?) they will stay on the rolls for a few years until their voters registration naturally expires. I bet this is true in almost all states but of course I am no expert.
He looks like former QB and TV announcer Mark Sanchez.
re: Trump had guys dressed in revolutionary war uniforms to meet King Charles
Posted by Eurocat on 4/28/26 at 7:12 pm to hawgfaninc
This is not Trump trying to be funny or rude.
This band performs at all (or almost all) Head of State arrivals at the White House and has for decades.
Here they are under President Biden welcoming the President of France.
LINK
Here they are while George Bush was President, this time welcoming the Pope.
LINK
More information including how to audition.
LINK
This band performs at all (or almost all) Head of State arrivals at the White House and has for decades.
Here they are under President Biden welcoming the President of France.
LINK
Here they are while George Bush was President, this time welcoming the Pope.
LINK
More information including how to audition.
LINK
I am not running cover for Comey at all. I am just pointing out that Guzman did not testify at his trial. I didn't even mention the word "Comey".
This is the guy who was number two in the FBI? Why didn't he do something about it? If it is so bad, don't quit.
quote:
So says "fact checker" Samantha Putterman...part of the dem machine?
Trial transcripts show no record of him testifying as do contemporary media accounts.
For example
LINK
On September 14, 2019 in a Facebook post:
Says El Chapo "stated in court" that James Comey helped launder $150 million "cartel money for Pelosi."
This is fake news
Samantha Putterman
By Samantha Putterman
October 1, 2019
No, El Chapo didn’t testify that Comey laundered $150 million for Pelosi
In February 2019, infamous Mexican drug lord Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán was found guilty on 10 counts of federal charges after a three-month trial exposed the inner workings of his Sinaloa cartel, which funneled drugs into the United States for decades.
But some have used the kingpin’s high-profile trial to fuel viral misinformation on the internet.
We came across one of those rumors in a Facebook post, which claimed "El Chapo stated in court" that former FBI director James Comey "helped launder $150m cartel money for Pelosi." The post continued, saying, "it appears only those who were at the trial are aware of this. Maybe more people should bring this into the news."
This is just one variation of the many rumors that claim Guzmán gave up information during his testimony in the trial.
Like the others, it is completely fabricated because Guzmán didn’t take the stand at all during his trial.
According to the trial’s transcript, Guzmán chose not to testify at the trial and his defense only called one witness, FBI agent Paul Roberts. The agent was called to discuss notes he took about a drug trafficker previously involved with Guzmán, in an attempt to highlight discrepancies between the notes and the testimony the trafficker gave during the trial.
Alex Cifuentes, a former Guzmán associate, took the stand and testified that, among other Mexican officials paid off by Guzmán, former Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto took a $100 million bribe from the kingpin. But there was no testimony about Comey, Pelosi, or any other American official.
Says El Chapo "stated in court" that James Comey helped launder $150 million "cartel money for Pelosi."
This is fake news
Samantha Putterman
By Samantha Putterman
October 1, 2019
No, El Chapo didn’t testify that Comey laundered $150 million for Pelosi
In February 2019, infamous Mexican drug lord Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán was found guilty on 10 counts of federal charges after a three-month trial exposed the inner workings of his Sinaloa cartel, which funneled drugs into the United States for decades.
But some have used the kingpin’s high-profile trial to fuel viral misinformation on the internet.
We came across one of those rumors in a Facebook post, which claimed "El Chapo stated in court" that former FBI director James Comey "helped launder $150m cartel money for Pelosi." The post continued, saying, "it appears only those who were at the trial are aware of this. Maybe more people should bring this into the news."
This is just one variation of the many rumors that claim Guzmán gave up information during his testimony in the trial.
Like the others, it is completely fabricated because Guzmán didn’t take the stand at all during his trial.
According to the trial’s transcript, Guzmán chose not to testify at the trial and his defense only called one witness, FBI agent Paul Roberts. The agent was called to discuss notes he took about a drug trafficker previously involved with Guzmán, in an attempt to highlight discrepancies between the notes and the testimony the trafficker gave during the trial.
Alex Cifuentes, a former Guzmán associate, took the stand and testified that, among other Mexican officials paid off by Guzmán, former Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto took a $100 million bribe from the kingpin. But there was no testimony about Comey, Pelosi, or any other American official.
Image of Trump to be put on inside cover of some new US Passports
Posted by Eurocat on 4/28/26 at 1:37 pm
EXCLUSIVE: State Dept. Finalizing Plan to Put Trump Picture on U.S. Passports
The new design would mark yet another U.S. government property upon which the president has plastered his likeness.
Benjamin Parker
Apr 28, 2026
THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS CLOSE TO FINALIZING a radical redesign of the U.S. passport to include a picture of President Donald Trump, The Bulwark has learned from two sources with knowledge of the redesign, including one who shared images currently under consideration.
The redesign is ostensibly part of a larger celebration of the 250th anniversary of American independence. It comes as the Treasury Department prepares to produce coins featuring Trump’s image—both a controversial $1 coin in general circulation1 and an “as large as possible” commemorative gold coin—and as the National Park Service emblazons Trump’s face on its park passes. Both of those redesigns were justified as being part of the 250th anniversary celebration.
According to the images of the passport redesign provided to The Bulwark, the inside cover of the new State Department-issued document will feature Trump—taken from his second inaugural portrait—superimposed over the Declaration of Independence, as well as the president’s signature in gold. A more traditional patriotic image—a detail from the John Trumbull painting Declaration of Independence—is reserved for the back cover.
The Bulwark reached out to both the State Department and the White House this morning with a request for comment. A State Department spokesperson asked us for deadline extension as they were “looking into” the inquiry. We gave them an additional two hours. In that time, Fox News published an “exclusive” on the new passport design. A White House spokesperson then sent us an email response confirming the new design “on background” with a link to the Fox News story.
According to Edward Kolla, a professor at Georgetown University and an expert on the history of passports, the decision to include the image of the president on the passport is “wacky.” No modern U.S. passport has featured the image of a sitting president, and no foreign passport has featured “the head of state of any country,” Kolla said. While passports used to bear the signatures of the officials in whose name they were issued, American passports are issued in the name the secretary of state, not the president.
The current passport design, in use since 2021, features on the inside cover a depiction of Francis Scott Key observing the British bombardment of Fort McHenry in 1814, along with the closing lines of “The Star-Spangled Banner”: “O say does that star / spangled banner yet wave / O’er the land of the free / & the home of the brave?” The back cover of the current passport features an image of the Earth, the moon, and the Voyager spacecraft, along with a quote from the nineteenth-century author and activist Anna Julia Cooper: “The cause of freedom is not the cause of a race or a sect, a party or a class—it is the cause of humankind, the very birthright of humanity.”
The proposed new passport design. (Department of State)
With the exception of an image of Mount Rushmore, no president’s portrait appears in the current passport design.
LINK
The new design would mark yet another U.S. government property upon which the president has plastered his likeness.
Benjamin Parker
Apr 28, 2026
THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS CLOSE TO FINALIZING a radical redesign of the U.S. passport to include a picture of President Donald Trump, The Bulwark has learned from two sources with knowledge of the redesign, including one who shared images currently under consideration.
The redesign is ostensibly part of a larger celebration of the 250th anniversary of American independence. It comes as the Treasury Department prepares to produce coins featuring Trump’s image—both a controversial $1 coin in general circulation1 and an “as large as possible” commemorative gold coin—and as the National Park Service emblazons Trump’s face on its park passes. Both of those redesigns were justified as being part of the 250th anniversary celebration.
According to the images of the passport redesign provided to The Bulwark, the inside cover of the new State Department-issued document will feature Trump—taken from his second inaugural portrait—superimposed over the Declaration of Independence, as well as the president’s signature in gold. A more traditional patriotic image—a detail from the John Trumbull painting Declaration of Independence—is reserved for the back cover.
The Bulwark reached out to both the State Department and the White House this morning with a request for comment. A State Department spokesperson asked us for deadline extension as they were “looking into” the inquiry. We gave them an additional two hours. In that time, Fox News published an “exclusive” on the new passport design. A White House spokesperson then sent us an email response confirming the new design “on background” with a link to the Fox News story.
According to Edward Kolla, a professor at Georgetown University and an expert on the history of passports, the decision to include the image of the president on the passport is “wacky.” No modern U.S. passport has featured the image of a sitting president, and no foreign passport has featured “the head of state of any country,” Kolla said. While passports used to bear the signatures of the officials in whose name they were issued, American passports are issued in the name the secretary of state, not the president.
The current passport design, in use since 2021, features on the inside cover a depiction of Francis Scott Key observing the British bombardment of Fort McHenry in 1814, along with the closing lines of “The Star-Spangled Banner”: “O say does that star / spangled banner yet wave / O’er the land of the free / & the home of the brave?” The back cover of the current passport features an image of the Earth, the moon, and the Voyager spacecraft, along with a quote from the nineteenth-century author and activist Anna Julia Cooper: “The cause of freedom is not the cause of a race or a sect, a party or a class—it is the cause of humankind, the very birthright of humanity.”
The proposed new passport design. (Department of State)
With the exception of an image of Mount Rushmore, no president’s portrait appears in the current passport design.
LINK
From that now I've seen everything file - Missed NFL game FG kick saves a mans life
Posted by Eurocat on 4/28/26 at 3:56 am
LINK
Mark Toothaker, a thoroughbred trainer with Spendthrift Farms, is going to be attending the Kentucky Derby this weekend to cheer on Spendthrift’s Further Ado. That might not have been happening if it wasn’t for an unusual coincidence — that started with a missed field goal.
In an interview with the Associated Press, Toothaker said that he was watching the New York Giants on “Monday Night Football” in December when a whiffed kick from Younghoe Koo made him laugh so hard that he got a seizure.
The defining moment came in the second quarter of the loss to the New England Patriots, as Koo attempted a 47-yard field goal. Instead, Koo tripped as he went for the kick and missed the ball completely, leading the Giants to turn the ball over on downs.
The miss, Toothaker said, prompted him to laugh incredibly hard, to the point of having a seizure, which he described as being “electrocuted.” His wife, Malory, a nurse at a rehabilitation hospital with experience with brain injuries, initially thought her husband was joking but called 911 to transport him to a hospital.
A CT scan later revealed a “tennis ball-sized” brain tumor in Toothaker’s brain. At the University of Kentucky’s hospital, the tumor, which turned out to be benign, was removed. Toothaker was released by the end of the week without suffering any long-term damage — all of which he credits to Koo.
Mark Toothaker, a thoroughbred trainer with Spendthrift Farms, is going to be attending the Kentucky Derby this weekend to cheer on Spendthrift’s Further Ado. That might not have been happening if it wasn’t for an unusual coincidence — that started with a missed field goal.
In an interview with the Associated Press, Toothaker said that he was watching the New York Giants on “Monday Night Football” in December when a whiffed kick from Younghoe Koo made him laugh so hard that he got a seizure.
The defining moment came in the second quarter of the loss to the New England Patriots, as Koo attempted a 47-yard field goal. Instead, Koo tripped as he went for the kick and missed the ball completely, leading the Giants to turn the ball over on downs.
The miss, Toothaker said, prompted him to laugh incredibly hard, to the point of having a seizure, which he described as being “electrocuted.” His wife, Malory, a nurse at a rehabilitation hospital with experience with brain injuries, initially thought her husband was joking but called 911 to transport him to a hospital.
A CT scan later revealed a “tennis ball-sized” brain tumor in Toothaker’s brain. At the University of Kentucky’s hospital, the tumor, which turned out to be benign, was removed. Toothaker was released by the end of the week without suffering any long-term damage — all of which he credits to Koo.
Ex NFL star Leveon Bell claims his former HC was doing coke in his office at the Jets
Posted by Eurocat on 4/27/26 at 2:16 pm
LINK
Former NFL running back Le’Veon Bell alleged that he saw ex-New York Jets head coach Adam Gase do cocaine in his office “more than once.”
On an episode of the “Respectfully The Justin Laboy Show” posted Sunday, Bell called Gase the “dumbest” and “worst coach ever” before veering into serious accusations. Gase “did a lot of **** in that office that coaches ain’t supposed to be doing,” Bell claimed before snorting his nose in exaggerated fashion. “We about to go to practice, bro! ... This is what you’re doing in here?”
“You ain’t seen him sniff coke, bro,” Laboy responded.
“With my own two [eyes],” Bell said. “Hey, not just once, though.”
“It was just crazy to me to actually see him doing it,” the ex-player continued. “I heard all the stories and ****. Yeah, I think Adam Gase is on that cocaina. ... He was fried calling them plays. He was fried.”
]
Former NFL running back Le’Veon Bell alleged that he saw ex-New York Jets head coach Adam Gase do cocaine in his office “more than once.”
On an episode of the “Respectfully The Justin Laboy Show” posted Sunday, Bell called Gase the “dumbest” and “worst coach ever” before veering into serious accusations. Gase “did a lot of **** in that office that coaches ain’t supposed to be doing,” Bell claimed before snorting his nose in exaggerated fashion. “We about to go to practice, bro! ... This is what you’re doing in here?”
“You ain’t seen him sniff coke, bro,” Laboy responded.
“With my own two [eyes],” Bell said. “Hey, not just once, though.”
“It was just crazy to me to actually see him doing it,” the ex-player continued. “I heard all the stories and ****. Yeah, I think Adam Gase is on that cocaina. ... He was fried calling them plays. He was fried.”
]
But there they have much greater security and a designated survivor. And frankly I would not mind it if the VP (no matter what party) was told to be the designated survivor and shuttled off to Camp David or some secret place for a few hours
Too many people in the line of succession in one place at one time in my opiniom
Posted by Eurocat on 4/25/26 at 11:34 pm
LINK
Grassley sent a text saying his thoughts are with the people there so that seems to indicate he, in turn was not. God forbid something really bad had happened like you see on those shows like FBI or Chicago PD where the bad guys don't just have guns but much worse, he seems to be the first one in the line not there.
He is 93 years old.
Grassley sent a text saying his thoughts are with the people there so that seems to indicate he, in turn was not. God forbid something really bad had happened like you see on those shows like FBI or Chicago PD where the bad guys don't just have guns but much worse, he seems to be the first one in the line not there.
He is 93 years old.
He will not leave until he finishes his appetizer dammit.
Popular
7
