You're also an incredibly stupid liar. If anyone clicks through the link, they will see that you are lying about the Carr piece. You left out the first five paragraphs of the piece. These are the first two:
Sunday was the second anniversary of the sale of The Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdochâ(TM)s News Corporation. At that time, a chorus of journalism church ladies (I was among them) warned that one of the crown jewels of American journalism now resided in the hands of a roughneck, and predicted that he would use it to his own ends.
Yet here we are, two years later, and The Wall Street Journal still hits my doorstep every morning as one of the nationâ(TM)s premier newspapers.
In 2009, Carr was worried that the WSJ MIGHT be used by Murdoch as a conservative weapon, but in the two years he had owned the WSJ to that point, Murdoch hadn't started doing so.
I'd imagine that if the WSJ had started down that path, you'd have something more recent than 2009.
A judge later ordered Palin's emails released to the New York Times in response to a FOIA request they filed. The Times crowdsourced their investigation by posting the archive online (which is exactly what the WSJ is doing, by the way.) Neither the Times' professional investigation nor the crowdsourced investigation show any evidence that she conducted state business over the private emails.
Remember, in Texas, possessing more than four dildos is a felony here.
I'm all for keeping the government out of people's bedrooms, but why would you need to possess ANY dildos in a public school? Leave that shit at home.
I am incredibly suspicious of this anecdote.
Wells' investigation is independent of the league. (It was commissioned because the league has been accused of being too lenient on the New England Patriots and associated figures.) But the Wells report tells the league that by the league's standard of evidence, Brady and the other two did it. If the league accepts these findings, which they will, they don't need any further investigation to levy punishment.
"More probable than not" is actually a looser standard than "preponderance of evidence," but it's the standard that the NFL has decided on for its internal discipline rulings.
The reason Wells only looked to the "more probable than not" standard, rather than the stricter legal definitions used in civil or criminal courts, is explained on the first page of the report: That's all the league needs to be sufficiently sure that Brady (or whoever) did it to assess punishment.
In the American legal system, the analogous state is "guilty."
Wells didn't have to get to "beyond a reasonable doubt," the standard for a criminal investigation, because that would be gilding the lily. The NFL can impose punishment at "more probably than not."
This is all explained on the first page of the Wells Report.
At least that's how I've always seen it used, as a pejorative for conservatives who are (presumably falsely) claiming centrism.
That's abusing the terminology a little bit, but used as a slur against a "centrist Republican" I guess it gets the point across. I see "So-and-so insufficiently conservative Republican is so far to the left, he may as well be a Democrat." That's pretty much the same thing.
Normally the position refers to someone who is a little to the left on economic issues and pretty far to the left on social issues. Think about where Hillary Clinton falls, compared to Elizabeth Warren on the left and Ted Cruz on the right.
Saying that the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans doesn't make the Democrats "left", it only makes them "less right".
I know, but that isn't what I said. Neither the stated philosophies of the Democrats nor the Republicans are the center point. You can be a little to the right of the Democrats and still be left wing. (That philosophy is called "Classical Liberalism.") Similarly, you could be a little to the left of the stated position of the Republicans and still be right wing. "Failure to advocate for out and out socialism" isn't the dividing line for right wing versus left wing. If you talk like it is, you're being deliberately unclear.
Also of note, the guy who started this whole argument off wants to vote** for Bernie Sanders, who is a Democrat in the sense that he's running for the Democratic nomination, but who is not a Democrat in the sense that he's been registered with the Socialist part for most* of his career.
*I assume that you need to register as a Democrat to run in the Democratic primary, and thus Sanders is registered as a Democrat now. If he doesn't, he's probably still registered with the Socialists. I haven't actually checked, mostly because "Bernie Sanders is a Socialist" is a well known fact.
**The guy says he wants to vote for Sanders twice. So he may well be a Democrat, just one of the ones on the left wing of that party.
No, the Democratic party isn't a left-wing party because overall they aren't really socialist at all, despite what Fox News repeats ad nauseum.
I didn't call the Democrats socialists. I just pointed out that neoliberalism is to the left of classical liberalism, and thus is a left wing philosophy. (See the example I gave to the other guy about how it's wrong, generally speaking, to call Democrats communists.) Socialism is a different left wing philosophy. It falls to the left of neoliberalism and the far left of classical liberalism. But the existence of socialists doesn't make liberalism "not a left wing philosophy."
Also, if you think there aren't left wing authoritarians making decisions in the American public square, you're not paying attention.
You're telling me I'd have a better batting average with British Tories? I'd buy that, as there are more leftists per capita in Britain. But the existence of a party further to your left doesn't make you a centrist, and certainly not right wing.
"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe