leh-nerd skin-erd

The issue is that hatred makes a reasonable person irrational, and in this case causes them to accept as fact something that by definition is speculation. Every prominent hate group follows the same pattern. Find a dummy willing to listen to what they have say, outrage of said dummy ensues, and it's on to the next story.

It's interesting you posted this. My wife had NBC on today and the reported story was headlined "BARR REFUSES TRUMP REQUEST" or something similar. The reporter spoke factually that the WaPo reported that "sources" reported that Trump requested a press conference. It took the entirety of the 3 or 4 minute segment for the NBC guy to state that the WH called it bs, and that they could not independently verify the story. The reporter also said the WH "tried to downplay the notion that there was any tension between the Trump and Barr.". Isn't a more balanced version of the story that there's a rumor that all this happened? Why include a large banner headline that reports as fact something that can never be verified? In fact, isn't the real story that NBC is reporting an unsubstiated rumor about their political enemy, using the unsubstantiated rumor of another media source, declaring it as fact in a headline, but weasle-wording it at the end for plausible deniability? This type of story about a school budget battle wouldn't pass muster in a local Pennysaver story in Des Moines, would it? You talk about rabbit holes while you're basically posting a National Enquirer story?

It's roomier than you would think. Amazon delivers, too. No Starbucks, which is odd.

Holy cow! I really had no idea you had these types of investigative chops. You’ve laid out a pretty compelling case. You read, heard or received a telegram about someone purporting to be a Trump supporter continuing to be a Trump supporter even after someone else asked them a pointed and leading question dealing with their interpretation of a—and this is priceless—transcript of several hours of one-sided closed door testimony from a career bureaucrat? It’s like I know someone who dated someone who rode on a bus with someone who’s uncle was the Uber driver to a guy who’s the cousin of someone in the room. I have the chills.

I’m with you on this one. We only achieve true equality when everyone is treated equally.

I'm unaware of any company, any where that included in its corporate manifesto a policy explicitly encouraging employees to embarrass the organization by leaking news, data or minute meetings to a competitor. ABC earns its daily bread on all sorts of people violating all sorts of policies. ABC should just comes out and say "we're above all this, we do whatever we want, and suck it if you dont like it."

The media trips over itself to report on allegations, often hides behind unnamed sources, and often destroys lives and reputations for sport. They report on troop movements, sensitive information parsed for maximum effect, and care little about who gets trampled. The Whistleblower statutes make an awful lot of sense in the theoretical, there is the potential for significant conflict of interest and fraud in the practical. If by sharing the story about a story shared with him by someone else who heard from a friend that someone said something that made someone else uncomfortable he feels that he is in danger, he should report it to law enforcement. If, on the other hand, he has ever been in HIllary Clinton's circle of trust, he's already dead and just hasn't gotten the memo. We need to get to the bottom of this partisan dirty deed, and we need your support in telling the story far and wide.

Right wing wackos!

This attitude makes you an easy mark for duplicitous politicians and activists that may not have your best interests in mind. The flip side of the rejection of the man made climate change manifesto is not: 1. Let's poison the water! 2. Let's deplete the ozone! 3. Let's breathe dirty air! 4. F future generations and screw the children! Likewise, any adage that starts with "if we can save one..." has been used against well-intentioned simpletons since the beginning of time. I'd ask the following question: Given the ongoing tragedy of the abuse of children from all walks of life, and given that reasonable people agree that the abuse of a child is horrific, would you support random welfare checks on every home in America? They would be carried out by armed law enforcement, 24x7 mandatory access, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. The raids may not uncover abuse in every home (though we could flush out lots if abusive parents serving their children hamburgers), it would reflect a very cautious approach to a problem we all acknowledge. If there ends up being no abuse, well, who loses?

I can’t accept this answer because the topic is science. 5000 scientists don’t drown in “melted polar ice caps“, they drown in water, water is the answer. I also would have accepted Hlittle2O, and “Eaten by sad Polar Bears”. Maybe next time, less time reading about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in Teen Vogue, more time getting real with a science book, mr 4mer?

11,000* climate scientists 11.1 years to disaster and 1 young lady who could be cast as an extra in "The Climate Adventures of Pippi Longstocking" do little to convince me that I should support carbon tax schemes. Now this though, this is some grade A level salespersonship: Barnard said the changes shouldn't be seen as "sacrifices," but as a way of "transforming things that we have found stressful." "Everything from road rage and congestion and dirty air," she said. Anyone who does not support the elimination of fossil fuels immediately supports road rage...and stress. *if 16,000 climate scientists wrote a letter in 2017, why are only 11,000 speaking put now? Have 5,000 changed their mind, or we they off somewhere enjoying a little r&r before the planet blows up in October 2030? Selfish pricks!

This is odd. The Skins have asked for an independent review and Trent has asked his union to stay out of it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/11/04/trent-williams-asks-nfl-players-union-not-participate-review-his-health-records

These are serious allegations which, if true, are very troubling. She should step aside while these allegations are investigated and cooperate fully, if, as she says, she has nothing to hide. Let's open the books, speak with her personal accountant, get a look at her income, the sources of same, irregularities and see where she has chosen to invest. We'll also need to investigate her family members, though probably only to her second cousins. To me, she seems very agitated, has lost her composure and was very unprofessional in this exchange. What is she hiding, and is it reasonable to expect neutrality and objective reporting when you see this sort of unhinged exchange?

No one tells me what to do. I'll tell you what--I'll not follow 'em just to spite you.

Meaning that selective enforcement is the order of the day, that the call can be turned on/off as desired, and that a similar play can cause a team to miss the playoffs...but in the playoffs we’re maybe going to call it correctly. The consensus already seems to be that the officiating is rigged or tilted, I guess one more log on the fire is no big deal.

I thought you were going to propose a new penalty be assessed if a team's fan base complains about a call. I would have been against that because, well, just because.

I have to agree with the committee. Somehow keeping the beating to 41 or less in the spirit of fairness seems not at all arbitrary.

I was mistakenly under the impression that being “gutted” would hurt more than finding out 14 of your hypstyr journalist co-workers did not show up for work to protest a greedy hedge fund. It sure looked painful in Braveheart, but then again Mel Gibson is a pretty good actor and I don’t have any hedge fund people in my neighborhood.

Could you please summarize in 3 sentences or less, and use the čhïłłęr font for effect? All these words in sequence together makes me skeptical of the writers intent.

I think what we know at this point is substainally less than what we don't.

Confuscious say "Man who jump to conclusion sometime land in sea of deception.". You may have insider knowledge unavailable to me, and for all I know TW is one hundred percent accurate in what he says. However, given the very limited information available, all I really know is there is a football player engaged in a contract dispute with the team, who seems unhappy with his current situation, is complaining about medical services provided and level of care extended where he had a major health scare. We know the medical team will not offer a statement confirming or denying what he said because they cannot. We don't know that a doc didn't tell him to have his condition checked out by a specialist, if he simply ignored the guidance provided or if they incorrectly diagnosed anything. Whatever happened, let's hope he recovers fully.

Right, but I acknowledged I’m a hypochondriac and figured it was all in my head.

Hola, ¿cómo estás, Papi. Tengo un nudo en la cabeza y todos se ríen de mí.

Jesus, you think I’m sick too???

Wait a second. When you say "they knew about this for five years" are you suggesting the Skins knew it was cancer and kept him in the dark? Unfortunately things are missed every day in the world. Agreed with the part about family and what's really important, but after the thing is growing on his head at some point you'd think he'd see a second doctor. Dermatologist, something. Cripes I just googled "lump on my head for three years getting larger" and skin cancer is numero uno. In related news, I'm a bit of a hypochondriac and am now certain I have skin cancer.