leh-nerd skin-erd

The interactions clearly demonstrate over time that the she was the instigator of the hostility and the respondents were counter-trolling her. Hard to say if, upon reflection, they regret their lack of decorum in the calm light of day as they are not highly paid graduates of Harvard with a cushy gig spouting hate speech at the NYT.

They make a Land Rover in a hybrid?

It's probably just me, but what I see is a whole boatload of chairs in a really nice looking building. When I got to New Era, I see pretty much the same thing. Perhaps there are better amenities, maybe a chick fila or Shlotskys deli there, but I don't really get the fuss. I've been to a few stadiums, saw the Bills play at Gillette a few times (spoiler alert...they lost) and Gillette is architecturally more pleasing but I'm not Frank Lloyd Wright so it's not a hot button issue for me. If there is a functional obsolescence issue, fine, deal with it one way or the other, but I like out stadium.

I'm really pissed about the leading with the helmet' call on Jerry Hughes on 10/29 against the Pat's. Who calls that in the 4th quarter with the game on the line?? And with Hughes not even being on the field it seems even worse! This is #$@@ing bull#!@$. (just want to get a jump on it)

There is an arch-support specialist in the Albany area well-known for his expertise. He works (or did at the time) with some high profile clients, and former NBAer John Starks credited him with extending and improving his career. I was there with my kids, and we talked for a while about the impact he felt he could have on a playe like Aaron Schobel as he was having his issues with plantar fasciitis at the time. He told me that he worked with many professional athletes and teams, but that the Bills didn't see value in that sort of thing. He felt that there were some things that he could do to help AS but it was probably never going to happen. As as we were leaving, there was a rather large box over off to the side with the last name "Diehl" on it, and I asked if it was for David Diehl of the NYG. He just smiled and said he worked with lots of professional athletes. Anyway, it's awesome to see and hear about the Pegs willingness to commit substantial time, money and effort into WNY.

That interview was troubling to watch. He was all over the place, was clearly traumatized by his imprisonment, and his experience sounded like it was right out of a Robert Ludlum novel. You have to wonder if it happens to one high profile non-compliant individual, what's happening to people without the star power?

How did you go from "the point of the post" to a 10,000 word essay on past transgressions, your time as a job placement counselor, adult novelty items and ball sucking? Even for a message board that's some next generation chaotic spitballing.

Buddy Nix must be pushing 80 years old! There's no way he can play d tackle!

Amen, everyone knows Al Gore is next up.

One of the great tasteless post-tragedy news report scams of all time.

That's one of the funniest parts about it. The libs contorting like Russian gymnast Olga Korbut (aka SPY!) to defend secret surveillance of citizens and kicking down doors in the middle of the night. If this isn't formering choas I don't know what is.

I'd bet the PR department, Pegs, management and player went the route of getting him out there for one statement to try and move past it. It never works, as it's not like reporter 7-22 won't try to frame the question a bit differently than reporters 1-6. It's a big story, obviously, so its to be expected. I would be surprised if LMs attorney hadn't explained exactly how he/she wanted him to answer, and perhaps the reply was impacted by his prior issues. He's been there a few times.

Well I guess in 2018 America, phoenetics isn't cool anymore. Thanks a lot, twitter. And two two thumbs up emoji for catching that.

Sunglasses emoji implies sarcasm? All this time I thought he implied causal cool. All this time...what's the emoji for sunglasses guy got me?? The media meets expectations every time.

disguise itself as liberalism?

incredibly fair, almost benevolent on our part. it must be very reassuring for them I would think. ?

that's how we subjugate our women, we make 'em watch our tv programmes. Hillary figured it out so 2020 is going to be a bumpy ride.

thanks. it was obnoxious, uncalled for, and rude on baskins part. there was a time when that sort of things aggravated me, but i'm pretty comfortable with the way i see the world. better off to let baskin be baskin, and i'll just go get a slice of pizza.

I'll give you a pass because you seem very emotional on this issue. I'll try to extend the courtesy I extend to others, but have to let you know if you're going to behave a teenager who feels cheated because she/he is entering puberty later than his/her peers I'm not interested in that type of exchange. If you're comfortable with Brennan's outburst, character and statements, I urge you to share that with all your friend. Then, shout it from the rooftops. Tell people at social gatherings. Look for people that are on the fence and tell them that you think that Brennan was not acting in a political fashion because MAYBE Trump is treasonous. It definitely will help. As to your other point, I looked into this as your argument was really compelling, probably because the capital letters were easy to read. I have been unable to find any reference source that suggests Brennan has previously been stripped of his clearance. I also was unable to find any sources that revealed what Brennan may or may not have accessed on a classified level. Not sure why, but I get this blinking message in red that tells me I do not have clearance to access the data. Come to think of it that message was all in caps as well. Has Brennan been stripped of his clearance?

I think it goes beyond idealism to a fantasy world. Everything is political. Everything done involves posturing. Everyone in Washington seems to be playing the long game. The former director of the CIA calls the current admin treasonous, and we're to assume that's not political? And again, if Trump and his people think Brennan et al offer nothing of value to them, it's like the oldretiredfiremanfan who keeps coming around the fire station waxing about the good old days. time to move on. In this case, Brennan is a paid talking head for a media outlet, an outlet that seems to be at war with the admin. The trump admin is stating, clearly, loudly and publicly: We don't want this guy around intelligence. The End

I'm jumping in here late, but here's the thing that strikes me. I'd think you're either in, or you're out. If you're in...if your opinion/expertise is valued by the new administration, it seems logical to me that a pathway should exist for continued clearance at the highest level necessary. It doesn't seem all that complicated to me. I know we can all pretend it is, or should be, but in 2018 it seems like it should be pretty straightforward. On the other hand, if you're out, and take great pains to paint yourself as an enemy of the next admin, I see no reason for the new admin to grant you access to the Congressional Fitness Center, let alone classified information. Assuming clearance can be terminated lawfully, it makes little sense to spend an inordinate amount of time wringing our hands about the lawful termination of access. In fact, responding to your earlier post, the whole thing is political, isn't it? Who has access, who gets to stay, who gets to go. I felt the same way about Trump giving Comey the boot, and let's be fair, at any given time over the preceding year Comey could have been terminated and half the country would have been thrilled, and half would not. Change the date of the termination by a couple months, and the roles are reversed. The argument that Trump needs to continue a legacy of access because his predecessor(s) chose to follow a path means nothing to me as a private citizen. To be honest, I was stunned to find that clearance was treated as part of the gold watch program for departing officials. Seems like a recipe for disaster to me. Clapper has been quoted as saying how "petty" Trumps move was. What world does he live in where he justifies his action against this admin and NOT assume he's' going to get the boot? And why "petty"? Is he a valued member of the IC as seen by Trump, or not? If not, what badge of honor comes with the clearance that makes it simply "petty" and not a "national disgrace the security of the Nation as risk"? Screw him.

And, it would seem that pulling their clearances would also substantially impact their ability for vast personal enrichment. Since the desire for wealth and power seems to cross party lines, they all benefit from it and the swamp wins again. You put people in charge of negotiating benefits with little oversight, managed by people who benefit from the program they are overseeing, and you get this sort of result. If legal to do so, yank their clearances and send them on their way.

Do this: 1. Make Toronto a gun-free zone on a six month trial basis. Buy lots of signs so people know, you can get them at Staples; 2. This one is controversial, but make Toronto a gang-free zone on a 12 month basis. Again, signs are important here, but use strong language so the gang members know you're serious about this; After 24 months, probably, gangs and guns will be gone in Toronto, you will have only invested in signs and most of the heavy lifting was done in 18 months. Then, roll the program out to the rest of the country. Oh, and in the meantime, tell all of the victims of gun violence in Canada that while the bullets may have hurt/maimed/killed them, they really have nothing to complain about because the bullets were fired by gang members and at least it wasn't a mass shooting. Consider.

I've read each of your posts and while you've cited many opinions as "fact", I'm struggling to find any. You've told us how the "world" perceives the US, have deigned to speak for 36,700,000 Canadian citizens and how they view potential emigration to the US, how idiotic it is to apply any sort of business acumen to running the country because you run a business, and seem to think that the entirety of the problem (from a world view perspective) can be summed up by reducing the argument to "wealthy white males who are exclusively Republican who fear for their jobs (but only if taken by anyone other than another Caucasian male) who believe that a women should not have the right to terminate a pregnancy at any time of her choosing under any circumstance. 60+ million people boiled down to 4 or 5 bullet points. Remarkable. I think....you are limited in how you see the world and your role in it. You may be well-intended, buy you can't see beyond the end of your own experiences. That allows you to speak for all Canadians, speak for entirety of the world (I'd bet there are at least 60m people who think your boy Trudeau is an incredibly weak leader, but many many more who don't think of him at all), and to Hillarize the election by placing all supporters into one neat little egg carton with 5 or 6 cradles. With respect to your questions earlier, i would answer "yes" to some of your questions and "no" to others. Which answers in the affirmative reveal why I support many aspects of this administration, and how come when I answer no to any, I'm not a liberal, or looking to move to Edmonton?

If you substitute US for Canada in this article, 59-99% of the world would be outraged.