BullBuchanan

I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. Sighh... You didn't actually read the study, did you? If you did you may have (probably not) discovered a few things: Mask wearers had a lower covid rate than non mask wearers: 1.8% to 2.1% Participants were not on a controlled environment. They were not required to wear masks in their own household. They were not restricted from having people in their household. Their behavior out of the household was not regulated beyond the suggestion that they wear a mask. The only verification that masks were worn was via self report. The peer reviews on the link you supplied tore the study to shreds for even more reasons related to the poor structure and control of the experiment. Science is a process, and it requires that processes be carefully controlled, measured and analyzed in order for valuable evidence to be derived. Well run experiments are so specific that proving something as broad as the efficacy of masks should not really be possible. Putting a kickback guard on a chainsaw doesn't prevent you from cutting your arm off if you want to.

Well that's straight up wrong, but I really don't expect you to come armed with facts, so carry on.

My favorite Lee Smith fact In 16 Games played in 2019, Lee Smith had 4 receptions for 38 yards. He also had 8 penalties for 51 yards He made 3.5 million dollars in 2019 and is making 3.25 million dollars in 2020 An absolute ***** legend and my personal hero.

You can't be one-dimensional and expect to win in the Playoffs. Fixing whatever is wrong witht he run game is critical to us having sustained success including scenarios in inclement weather and being able to dictate the pace of play.

someone gets it.

She ***** sucks. What's your point?

Maybe the fact that he's lied over 20,000 times while in office has something to do with it? He's likely the most documented dishonest person who has ever lived. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/13/donald-trump-20000-false-or-misleading-claims Can you make an evidence based claim that NYT has done the same?

"Charges Against Protestors Being Dropped By The Thousands" https://news.yahoo.com/why-charges-against-protesters-being-201033263.html Prosecutors called the scale of both the mass arrests and mass dismissals within a few short months unrivaled, at least since the civil rights protests of the early 1960s. With police detaining hundreds of people in major cities, the arrests this year ended up colliding with the limitations of the court system. In the aftermath, prosecutors declined to pursue many of the cases because they concluded that the protesters were exercising their basic civil rights. Cases involving free speech or free assembly rarely succeed in court, according to prosecutors across the country, and the coronavirus pandemic also played a role in the decision. A wave of thousands of minor cases threatened to capsize courts already floundering under hefty lockdown backlogs. There was also the recognition that law enforcement officers often use mass arrests as a technique to help clear the streets, not to confront illegal behavior.

Niners and Patriots could go either way, and expecting a loss against Pittsburgh. I wouldn't be shocked at all if we drop all 3.

You should have read my post. It addressed this - in the first paragraph.

Backup QB at University of Dayton: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Gruden

That's a wild look. Au Natural for sure

Sup dog?

i wouldnt be shocked to see him in a pats jersey next year

The point is in the title and the first sentence. The notion that "the media" is politically biased and thus cannot be trusted is false. They are financially biased. Whether or not you can trust that depends on how well you understand financial motivation. However, conflating the people that work at the corporations with the corporations themselves is likely where things get confused. As I've identified before, the tendency to hold "American conservative" views tends to diminish as education increases. Given that most roles involved within media tend to require advanced education, it stands to reason that those that work in the media will also be less likely to have "American conservative" views. This is also true of Big Tech. The fact that Facebook is made up of predominantly people that would be significantly more likely to have "American liberal" views could lead certain people to believe that Facebook is a "liberal" company, when that is not true in any sense of how they exist in the world. The may say and do some things in order to reap the benefits of appealing to their employees and their customer base, but the corporation itself does not hold a liberal political ideology beyond that. The claim that it does, and the lack of understanding why it doesn't, is what allows anti-intellectualism and crazy conspiracy theories to fester which further draws people to extreme ends of the political spectrum. The idea that a corporation is on any working person's "team" is completely ludicrous, and the sooner we put it to bed the sooner we can start to have meaningful political discussions and compromises as a country. If someone thinks that the best way to increase our economic growth as a country is through a limited tax structure? Great - let's talk about the pros and cons of that. If someone thinks think that there's a liberal sponsored sex cult taking place in the basements of pizzerias and the reason that they haven't gotten a raise in 5 years is because there aren't enough Mexican kids in cages at the border, we can't even pretend we're functionally the same species.

Yup - all of that.

Fox's recent out of character rebuffing of late-stage Trumpism should be seen as further evidence. They were anti-Trump in the beginning until it served their interests to jump full on the bandwagon, and now they're hedging their bets that they may need to be looked as as a more moderate voice to win over right leaning independents and democrats during a GOP dark age. It all comes down to money.

I wonder what Jay Ajayi is up to.

I'm taking the under on you ever actually contributing a post of substance, Westside4.

The idea that a corporation and/or news organization would have any sort of intentional political agenda that did not directly correlate to their bottom line has always been absurd at face value. The "media" is just a company like any other and they have a product that they sell in which they wish to get the maximum return for the minimum investment possible. They don't care whether their employees, partners, or customers are fascists or anarchists - only that it serves to generate them money. Certain brands, like Fox and MSNBC have carved out partisan ecosystems for themselves, but that's more a function of market niche in pursuit of the aforementioned financial returns, than any stoic principle they'll proudly stand for in the face of economic demise. In spite of all of that, those on the extreme right have continued to demand that media, big tech, and whatever corporation features a gay couple in a commercial is somehow a liberal institution instead of one that just understands how to maximize returns. They do this, while accused liberally biased companies like Facebook, pull shenanigans like this: "Mark Zuckerberg said banning Steve Bannon from the platform for advocating for the beheading of Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI director Christopher Wray is 'not what our policies would suggest'" https://www.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-said-banning-steve-172706111.html Zuckerberg, one of the world's richest people, is not anything remotely resembling the kind of "liberal" the right has defined in recent years. He may actually be a "neo-liberal" by definition, but then again so are most of the GOP who support corporatism, either openly or behind closed doors. This idea of "liberal" media is a nice 2 for 1 that tries to vaguely define political enemies in an Animal Farm type structure along with something even more insidious. Anyone that's ever spent time around their racist uncles can remember when The Liberal Media used to run by a different anti-Semitic moniker. Replacing it with the world "liberal" gets the same point across while being a little more socially acceptable at kids birthday parties and holidays. Much the same can be said for the whole George Soros fascination from the right. They can do all of this with a straight face because Fox News & the church told them they should feign support for a corrupt war criminal in Netanyahu and that means that they aren't bigots. Bravo! It's high time we started putting meaning back in words, because as Inigo Montoya would say:

The quote below is the perfect example of what happened here Jackpot to the first person that can define a "communist liberal"

We entered the game 3rd place in the conference and we left it 3rd place in the conference. What's there to feel pessimistic about? I don't think we're a legit SB contender this year. We could maybe get lucky against the good teams if they hand the game to us, but on even footing we aren't there yet, and that's ok. People are going to have to get used tot he fact that even when you're pretty good, you're going to lose games you should have won. It happens to every t4eam in the league - the Chiefs dumped to the Raiders, Baltimore to NE, etc, It happens, and it's not the end of the world. Be happy we have a better team than most.

There is a 100% probability that it will be.