dickleyjones

As a curious onlooker from your BFFs up north - what kind of power does a president in the USA hold when the senate is the opposite party? If Trump wins but the Senate goes Dem, what can he do for Republicans? He seems to be the kind of person that does whatever is popular, is it possible that he would do what a Dem Senate wants? I don't think Trump cares much about policy at all, except when it effects him directly. For example, let's say a Dem senate wants to change obamacare and move towards a system closer to Canada's. Can Trump stop that? Can Trump insist on repealing obamacare? Can Trump just flip and say "whatever the people want..."?

'member Superbowls?

i love nothing about her. As a Canadian i'm finding the whole thing both amusing and horrific.

yes, it's just that your comment coincided with the emailz announcement, as if that was the backbreaker.

yes, revisiting the Clinton email scandal is what will doom your country... The hyperbole from both sides is impressive...but sadly, not surprising. ps. i really hope you guys will be fine.

Welp, here's to always staying on the right side of potential success! First step: get off the internet http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/53/9/1017/ unless you like maximizing your chance of depression, loneliness and stress. As for Pasteur, I shall not argue with him except to say, "not if the robots get us first."

strawman...not my intention. It was simply an example, and I think it was pertinent but if you don't then just ignore it. My point wasn't to call you homophobic or anything, I apologize if you were insulted. My point was that statistics can change over time, and often do, and that sometimes it is people's attitudes that create the change (and oppose it). No matter the example, the question still remains the same: Can you not see a future where these problems don't exist? And yes, i would make an argument regarding sexual preference and STDs although I realize that presently you are correct, so i wouldn't word it quite the way you did. Not because feelings. Because we as a society have decided to meet STDs head on and fix that problem. Better condoms, better medicine, better prevention. Should we not move towards a future where STD prevention is super effective and the chance of getting an STD is mostly equal for everyone (ie very close to 0)?

i see. so, for example, no one should come out as gay because 100 years ago it was fact that you'd be totally ostracized and have a terrible time with life? and even now, there's a (just throwing out a random number here) 30% greater chance of being ostracized for being gay? and society as a whole shouldn't be encouraged to accept it, or change, because outcomes were really bad 100 years ago and are still bad now? Can you not see a future where these problems don't exist? Are you saying that then, and only then, when homosexual and heterosexual, nuclear and non-nuclear, etc, are seen as having equal opportunity in society, would you accept coming out as gay or entering a non-nuclear family as a good idea? This is how society changes, for the better imo. or maybe we should go back to separate seating arrangements on buses?

No, the outcome is fine and I do not subscribe to the leftest narrative you espoused. Maybe the study means exactly what you claim it means (i don't think it does, but let's go with it). You basing how you treat other people on these studies is what I find unappealing (and was the basis of this conversation). I'm not sure which came first, the study or your attitude towards those in non-nuclear families, but assuming you read the study and then thought "hey, this study means people entering into a non-nuclear family don't deserve my respect because they should know the statistics and know their decision is poor" your reasoning is flawed. What if they didn't see the study? Further, there are so many other factors involved that you ignore. Again, we are assuming non-nuclear family means poverty is more likely. Isn't it a good idea to ask 'why'? Maybe it is the attitudes of others regarding the non-nuclear family which supports the likelyhood of poverty. Maybe if society shifted their view (which happens) the non-nuclear family can rise out of the dregs. That is one example of another factor, and there are many others. I still fail to understand why you let these studies fuel you attitude. Why not make life better for people, why not try to shift the view of this problem and address the problem. It seems like your answer is "don't be in a non-nuclear family". That doesn't work for an increasing amount of people, I don't think it's a good answer.

My evidence is that there is likely a third (or fourth or fifth) factor that has been ignored or missed by the studies. Maybe the cause is the attitudes (in my opinion, ignorant attitudes, but to each their own) of some people in our society regarding non-nuclear families. There could be other causes as well. Point is, your 'evidence' is weak. Edit: this is not to say your quoted studies are worthless, they were done for a reason. Taking the results as 'fact' is just silly though.

Really. Feel free to correct me (as I will you - it's "YOU'RE" ffs) but 'the point' is that it is Dareus's fault that he is injured and therefore it is Dareus's fault that we lost. If the injury is his fault, then sure, burn the witch. But the actual fact here is we don't know what happened. Maybe he got injured in practice through no fault of his own like so many other players do...is that not a possibility or even likely? Perhaps you are some sort of insider with actual knowledge of the situation. Please enlighten us if so. Otherwise, you are just another of many here who draw conclusions based on not much. At least you are in good company.

yeaaah...the evidence has come in and now we know definitively that Dareus injured himself on purpose. it is fact that this loss was his fault.

the joke itself is fine, who cares. tytt's "facts" are the actual joke in this discussion.

I'd love to see him out there, that's for sure!

fair enough. I'm reserving judgement since I don't know the true cause of his injury.

yeah...get him out there injured so he can REALLY damage himself.

I'm not suggesting tytt is advocating the outcome. I'm suggesting that statistics can be insightful and may guide us on how to better address the issue instead of just accepting the stats as immutable. We should be looking at how can we help the children of same sex couples have more success, and change the stats.

But what can we do? I think we should do more than just observe the situation and say "too bad...statistically, that kid is screwed." Perhaps the statistics you have referenced can change over time if an effort is made.

It's not always a choice. One parent can die, for example. And even if your correlation statistics are 100% correct, which is doubtful, perhaps we should be looking at the reasons why that is and address it constructively instead of just saying "welp, the only answer is less non-nuclear families." You know, actually help out that kid who had a parent pass away so he/she can be a part of the "best results".

so then why did you provide a comment? twice no less?

This past April I was celebrating Passover with my family. I wanted to cue up some passover music, so I went to youtube and typed in "passover". Discovered this band and we now have a new Passover tradition! https://youtu.be/iz1nq1hmVCE?t=17m42s EDIT: The band is called The Black Angels, and they rock!

Sandra Bullock - my G*D she is annoying.

sure there were a couple not so great calls, but the problem yesterday was missing/being late on the long throws. if you hit one of those we are in business. the receivers were burning the pats cbs all night.

worse than tv, not much better than any other streams.

are you saying the OP merits a more thoughtful response?