I think he did the entire SEC circuit, because I saw him once or twice at UGA too. Usually a woman with him that went by Sister Cindy, IIRC.
Can't say. Aluminum, probably too far. Ash or maple, okay by me. Real world- IConservatarians will decry the violence instead of focusing on the views of the guy who got hit, so probably not the best decision. Plus, she's now up for felony assault and weed possession. Not often you hear those two in the same sentence...
Something I meant to mention when I posted the Jed & Cindy Smock stuff above: when those people get assaulted, their local fundraising efforts get a lot easier. There's a formula. Bumps and bruises = (pseudo) martyrdom = $$$$$
Did you mention Cindy in your post and I just missed it? If so, apologies for poor reading comprehension.
Sister Cindy had a cameo in the Wikipedia article, but not a part I quoted. My brother tells a story about a time Jed and Cindy were working at U of I. Cindy was wearing this long black dress that reminded my brother of the wicked witch from the Wizard of Oz. At one point, she was pointing at the crowd yelling, "you're all sinners!!!" My brother yelled, "and Toto too?" Silence. After a few seconds a bunch of people got the joke. Laughter and golf applause. But from then on, regardless of what she was wearing, the line "you're all sinners" was met with the cry, "and Toto too?" It was more of a Rocky Horror Picture show vibe in Urbana than in Baton Rouge, in my experience.
Good stuff. The wiki article might've mentioned this too (obviously I didn't read it), but any time they were in town, there was always a rumor that Jed was really a psychology PhD doing crowd experiments for his dissertation. I never really bought that, but it was funny to think about.
An other creep goes down..... New from @ronanfarrow: Six additional women are now accusing Leslie Moonves of sexual harassment or assault. They include claims that he forced them to perform oral sex on him, that he exposed himself to them, and that he used intimidation against them. https://t.co/QEIaBZAxlJ— Michael Luo (@michaelluo) September 9, 2018
"You are a pathetic sexual abuser of employees at your place of work, and you can accept 1/10 of a billion ********ing dollars to go away, or you can stick around and try to defend the shit you did and risk coming away with nothing. Which do you choose?"
If you're a rich self entitled POS (which is what I serial assaulter working as an exec of a major network would be), then you choose the latter. Because that's who you are.
She closed Thursday's show messing up the name of an evicted house guest and then stumbled through saying a name she never uses. She closed the show saying, "I am Julie Chen Moonves."
Collin Daniel Richards has a history of domestic abuse and harassment and has now been charged with the first-degree murder of ISU student Celia Barquin Arozamena.https://t.co/81MJdk5fvA pic.twitter.com/uWj2wESnHU— Iowa State Daily (@iowastatedaily) September 18, 2018 So a guy with a history of harassing and harming women gets a series of slaps on the wrist until he finally takes it a step further and kills a young woman. It's hard not to see this as a failure of the justice system.
It’s pretty disgusting on so many levels. 37years later? Democrats sat on this for months? This is abuse of power and sort of shows how metoo has gotten out of control. I am all for legitimatestufff but this is all just absurd abuse of metoo power and political. Boooooo.
How is it an absurd abuse of power to not want to have a guy who is accused of sexual assault on the supreme court? Shouldn't the standards for a seat on the highest court in the land be a bit higher than for a middle-management position at your local McDonalds? I'm kind of weirded out that some people are okay with a guy like that having to decide on things that will impact all American women. My question is this: the GOP obviously knew about this thing. Hence why they had the 65 character witnesses ready. So why even risk nominating this guy? It can't be impossible to find a judge who has a similar stance on Roe vs. Wade and the 2nd amendment and who doesn't have any such crap in his past?
They need the trifecta: Those two, plus believing that the President is above the law no matter what, and cannot be indicted.
I don't want him appointed to the SC either, but it's shit like this that makes rational people question the entire system. First, if the accusation has fact behind it, he never should have made it this far. Why didn't she come forward previously? If this was brought up when he was a lower court judge, why wasn't it litigated at that time? I never buy accusations that are 20+ years in waiting. I know the issues and why someone would wait to come forward but it still seems too politically convenient. Second, of course the GOP knew the accusation was out there and was prepared to counter. It's the way the game is played. I have no idea if he is guilty or not, I have heard the accusation and the counter, and if you are absolutely positive one way or the other you are just a partisan.