| LIFE CV-19: Effects on life, work, and sports

Thought I'd share something my employer is doing to give back to the community and help support those restaurants that are getting hammered.

Every week, they'll pick 1-2 local restaurants and open up a $500 tab. They're limiting employees to $20 credit and expecting those employees who use the credit to tip generously. They've probably done this 7-8 times just in Missoula, along with other offices around the country.

Makes me proud as hell to work for these guys.
 
Thought I'd share something my employer is doing to give back to the community and help support those restaurants that are getting hammered.

Every week, they'll pick 1-2 local restaurants and open up a $500 tab. They're limiting employees to $20 credit and expecting those employees who use the credit to tip generously. They've probably done this 7-8 times just in Missoula, along with other offices around the country.

Makes me proud as hell to work for these guys.

Awesome gesture.

Since starting the hat company we have been welcomed with open arms by other small businesses, so it has really opened our eyes more than ever to how important it is to support small business. We have been making more of a concerted effort to shop small during all of this. We spend a little more money, but supporting those that don't have Wall Street backing them or seven figure P&L's is a great feeling.
 




That after the Saban's made a big contribution to Alabama's United Way (food bank assistance among other things,) after they've fed hospital workers at DCH, after we've seen UA Greek Life donate several 10's of thousands to the needy in W. Alabama, after we've had student start food delivery options for those in need ...

By all means, let's not support our future alum in need but take his money? Good lord... here's your idiot.
 
While there is not a vaccine available yet, the hydroxychloroquine is working in most cases. Why is there not more news about this. If it ain't working I want to know. If it is, why not give it to all up front before they need a ventilator. That's why I don't trust any media information that is spewing out. Just state the facts about that therapy and we can be assured of a possible treatment.
 
I'm still laughing at this, Josh. I can't tell you why it strikes me as so funny, but nevertheless ...

Personal social media. Oxymoron, no? A public account labeled "personal" that's on a social website...leaves my head spinning a bit. 🙃

Which part of personal as opposed to a business account is difficult to understand? Im assuming 12Gauge is you?
 
Which part of personal as opposed to a business account is difficult to understand? Im assuming 12Gauge is you?
You know what assuming has gotten you so far where I'm concerned, remember? 🤣 😉

Like I said, can't say why I find it amusing. Well, other than if you don't want people commenting on what you tweet make it private, ya know?

Gotta ask, though. You work @Southeastsun and have sun as part of your username but it's not a business account? @joshboutwellsun where you link articles you've written for the Enterprise paper but it's not a business account?

Lost me here, bro...and on a subject that really doesn't mean anything other that I found it entertaining.
 
Some states have nepotism laws, some states don't. When Carter was in the White House there were objections about his wife being appointed to an honorary position. They were advised no, based on a 1967 law, but ultimately she received the position.

A law written in 1978 overrules that 1967 law, according to Politico.

Again, I'm referring you to a left leaning publication here that goes against what you're suggesting applies to the President. Fact is, he can appoint anyone he wants just like he holds the right to fire and hire foreign diplomats.


The opinion longtime Justice Department attorney Daniel Koffsky issued in January at the request of the incoming Trump administration concluded that another law, passed in 1978, conferredbroad authority on the president to appoint White House officials essentially overrides the earlier anti-nepotism measure.
"We believe that the President's special hiring authority [in the 1978 law] permits him to make appointments to the White House Office that the anti-nepotism statute might otherwise forbid," Koffsky wrote in the opinion sent to White House counsel Don McGahn at his request.
White House spokesman Raj Shah said the change in the law nearly three decades ago rendered the earlier opinions obsolete.
"These opinions were issued before the passage of a 1978 law specifically authorizing the President to make White House Office appointments ‘without regard to any other provision of law," Shah noted. "These legal opinions are therefore inconsistent with subsequent congressional enactments. Rather than reversing prior policy, the Administration is upholding the law as written today.”

You keep referring to this "left leaning" site (ironic considering you just linked to Gatewaypundit a few posts ago but make no mention that it's so far right leaning that the damn thing is laying on its side) but the article you're pointing to is citing the DOJ's OPINION on a law. What website reported that and its supposed "leaning" is beyond me, but I digress. Also not sure what states have to do with the nepotism law, I'm clearly talking about a federal law.

Federal law, at 5 U.S.C. § 3110, generally prohibits a federal official, including a Member of Congress, from appointing, promoting, or recommending for appointment or promotion any “relative” of the official to any agency or department over which the official exercises authority or control. The statute defines a relative, for these purposes, as "an individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister."


I mean it truly doesnt matter, though, considering the DOJ has pretty much blanket said that the President can do whatever he wants, as has the president himself. "I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president."

You're misrepresenting this, Josh.

I'll refer you to left leaning Politico ...

With that basic principle in mind, let’s first address what was actually done, or, more accurately, what was not done. Kushner’s clearance was not “denied” or “revoked.” A decision was not made that he was disqualified from handling Top Secret information but qualified to handle Secret information. And no, this had nothing to do with his financial dealings or frequent amendments of his paperwork (well, not directly at least, although they are likely responsible for the underlying delay).

Here’s what really happened: Kushner, like many other Trump administration officials (and many new hires across the federal government under any administration), was granted an “interim” clearance while he was being investigated for a full clearance. It’s basically an abbreviated background check and temporary grant of access to classified information based on a prediction that he will ultimately receive a full clearance down the road. Even today, he still has an interim clearance, and they’re still processing him for a full clearance. The only difference is that he now has only interim access to Secret information, not Top Secret information or Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)—a special type of information category that is slightly different than a Secret or Top Secret classification. But while he can ostensibly access only Secret information now, he is still being processed for a full Top Secret clearance with SCI access (colloquially called “TS/SCI”).

I misrepresented nothing.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) on Monday released a memo detailing allegations from Tricia Newbold, a whistleblower who has worked as a career official in the Executive Office of the President for 18 years.

Newbold told the committee last month that officials in the Trump administration overruled her and others' recommendations not to grant security clearances to 25 individuals.

She also reportedly told the committee that a background investigation into Kushner brought concerns regarding foreign influence, personal conduct and other business interests, according to the Post.

The issues raised by Kushner's background check were not made clear, but the Post reported in 2018 that foreign officials had allegedly discussed ways to influence Kushner by leveraging his business dealings and lack of foreign policy experience.

 
You know what assuming has gotten you so far where I'm concerned, remember? 🤣 😉

Like I said, can't say why I find it amusing. Well, other than if you don't want people commenting on what you tweet make it private, ya know?

Gotta ask, though. You work @Southeastsun and have sun as part of your username but it's not a business account? @joshboutwellsun where you link articles you've written for the Enterprise paper but it's not a business account?

Lost me here, bro...and on a subject that really doesn't mean anything other that I found it entertaining.

Being right?

I don't care whether someone comments on something I say. My issue is continuously bringing something I've said on Twitter up as a way to try and shit on me, especially one like the one we are talking about that made no sense. "It's all on the side of the aisle we're on" in regards to me saying a Tweet from Trump's campaign spokesperson making a very stupid comment. And I also dont understand why you continue to do it on a burner account on here.

No, it's a personal account. And my linking to articles is the only reason it's not private.
 
I mean it truly doesnt matter, though, considering the DOJ has pretty much blanket said that the President can do whatever he wants, as has the president himself. "I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president."
I have zero issues with any President having people he trusts close to him and offering advice on matters of the state.
I misrepresented nothing.
and he's also the guy that had his security clearance rejected about a dozen times

Kushner’s clearance was not “denied” or “revoked.”

How's that work? Dozen's of times versus the WaPo reporting it happened last year and was overruled by Kline?


A few weeks ago I was watching one of the main stream media TV news reports—CNN as I recall—where they were interviewing Sean Penn about how the government should be responding. (He was pitching military involvement on a wholesale level.) The same day I saw economics people opining on health concerns and health care workers giving advice on economic issues. How much sense does any of that make?
 
I have zero issues with any President having people he trusts close to him and offering advice on matters of the state.





How's that work? Dozen's of times versus the WaPo reporting it happened last year and was overruled by Kline?


A few weeks ago I was watching one of the main stream media TV news reports—CNN as I recall—where they were interviewing Sean Penn about how the government should be responding. (He was pitching military involvement on a wholesale level.) The same day I saw economics people opining on health concerns and health care workers giving advice on economic issues. How much sense does any of that make?

I have zero issues with a president having people he trusts close to him and offering advice on matters of the state. I do, however, have issue with a president putting his daughter and son-in-law in important roles in the government that they are unqualified for. Just like I have an issue with many of the other cabinet members that were woefully unqualified for their positions but were put there because they donated a lot of money to his election... But whatever.

I'm sorry, Terry, my hyperbole "misrepresented" that the dude that has no business being in government "only" had his clearance denied once. My apologies.

Sean Penn giving advice on government makes no sense... in fact it makes about as much sense as a real estate trust fund baby giving advice on those same things.... except him actually having power opposed to Sean Penn who has no power...
 
real estate trust fund baby giving advice on those same things.
Here's what you don't know. I don't either, but it's a little premature to assume.
I have zero issues with a president having people he trusts close to him and offering advice on matters of the state. I do, however, have issue with a president putting his daughter and son-in-law in important roles in the government that they are unqualified for. Just like I have an issue with many of the other cabinet members that were woefully unqualified for their positions but were put there because they donated a lot of money to his election... But whatever.
You say unqualified, I ask "based on what?" Their title? That they're the face of some things? I see a conflict on agreeing with a President having people he trust relay information to him, and then going against that very thing because they're family. Or, in this case, you feel they're unqualified but really don't know what they're responsibility is here.

I don't either.

I see sins of the father placed on the son. I see what you're referring to "turning it into a tabloid" on a newspaper purchase when it was turned digital; yet still covers cultural, political, and other issues.

If I were asked several years ago what I thought about a real estate developer handling the social/digital side of a campaign I"d have had my doubts. Yet, that's what we saw the Kushner was brought into the Trump campaign, as I recall. While patterned after the model Obama used, I'd say he did a pretty good job with that: unqualified.

I find it fascinating you find his daughter unqualified for giving economic advice when we're looking at a graduate of Wharton, a lady whose handled some pretty intense things in her life in her business role, but she's ...

That my friend, makes no sense to me. Given the facts of the economic turnaround before Covid hit, it's really baffling.

Your opinions are most often interesting in these matters. More often than not I find a lot of questions...and hyperbole.
 
Here's what you don't know. I don't either, but it's a little premature to assume.

You say unqualified, I ask "based on what?" Their title? That they're the face of some things? I see a conflict on agreeing with a President having people he trust relay information to him, and then going against that very thing because they're family. Or, in this case, you feel they're unqualified but really don't know what they're responsibility is here.

I don't either.

I see sins of the father placed on the son. I see what you're referring to "turning it into a tabloid" on a newspaper purchase when it was turned digital; yet still covers cultural, political, and other issues.

If I were asked several years ago what I thought about a real estate developer handling the social/digital side of a campaign I"d have had my doubts. Yet, that's what we saw the Kushner was brought into the Trump campaign, as I recall. While patterned after the model Obama used, I'd say he did a pretty good job with that: unqualified.

I find it fascinating you find his daughter unqualified for giving economic advice when we're looking at a graduate of Wharton, a lady whose handled some pretty intense things in her life in her business role, but she's ...

That my friend, makes no sense to me. Given the facts of the economic turnaround before Covid hit, it's really baffling.

Your opinions are most often interesting in these matters. More often than not I find a lot of questions...and hyperbole.

It's also a typical of an individual being jealous that someone was given money. Not his fault he inherited money that someone in his family made, but you have jealous folks out there thinking they are unqualified brats only because they were given a lot of money. Stereotypes, a word the left hates the right for.
 
Here's what you don't know. I don't either, but it's a little premature to assume.

You say unqualified, I ask "based on what?" Their title? That they're the face of some things? I see a conflict on agreeing with a President having people he trust relay information to him, and then going against that very thing because they're family. Or, in this case, you feel they're unqualified but really don't know what they're responsibility is here.

I don't either.

I see sins of the father placed on the son. I see what you're referring to "turning it into a tabloid" on a newspaper purchase when it was turned digital; yet still covers cultural, political, and other issues.

If I were asked several years ago what I thought about a real estate developer handling the social/digital side of a campaign I"d have had my doubts. Yet, that's what we saw the Kushner was brought into the Trump campaign, as I recall. While patterned after the model Obama used, I'd say he did a pretty good job with that: unqualified.

I find it fascinating you find his daughter unqualified for giving economic advice when we're looking at a graduate of Wharton, a lady whose handled some pretty intense things in her life in her business role, but she's ...

That my friend, makes no sense to me. Given the facts of the economic turnaround before Covid hit, it's really baffling.

Your opinions are most often interesting in these matters. More often than not I find a lot of questions...and hyperbole.

Unqualified based on the fact that never in his life has he ever had any experience with anything that could ever possibly give him expertise in these areas. How is that difficult to understand?

You just compared a real estate developer - who also had experience (shitty experience but experience) in media - successfully using social media on a campaign to negotiating middle east peace, responding to a medical crisis, border security, etc.... Good grief. Yes, unqualified.

You seem to always find something very small, pick at it and pick at it and pick at it to make your point. I didn't say "Ivanka Trump is unqualified to give economic advice." I said she is unqualified for the position she has been given, Senior Adviser to the President. She supposedly gives advice and "council" on every thing involve in government. Donald Trump is also a graduate of Wharton, by the way...

The "economic turnaround" that started in 2010? That one? K...

It's also a typical of an individual being jealous that someone was given money. Not his fault he inherited money that someone in his family made, but you have jealous folks out there thinking they are unqualified brats only because they were given a lot of money. Stereotypes, a word the left hates the right for.

Stereotypes. Just like you placing a stereotype of me being a stupid liberal thats just jealous of rich people. I have no problem with rich people. I have a big problem with the system and the way many of these people step on the heads of those under them to remain rich, however. And the fact that many of them are considered "successful" for no other reason then they wore born into wealth. If that makes me a horrible person, I will gladly accept that.
 
The fact that I'm being told I'm unreasonable for suggesting that a person with zero public health experience is unqualified to be overseeing FEMA's distribution of medical supplies during a crisis (let alone everything else he's supposedly responsible) is just insane and is just proof that this is like yelling into a black hole. I am beyond done.

I hope you guys stay safe and this shit is over with sooner rather than later.
 
Back
Top Bottom