chasfh

I had to chuckle at this a little because I'm old enough to remember when wives working outside the home for a second family income was itself considered an unraveling of society's fabric.

So you're turning in your gun to the government if they tell you to, are you?

Well, if they don't know the difference between a "clip" and a "magazine", or what a risk pool is, I guess their opinion on this means nothing.

That's true, the United States is the best country for women to live in. Well, except for the Netherlands. And Norway. And Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia, United Kingdom, Portugal, and ... wait for it ... Singapore. https://ceoworld.biz/2021/06/11/the-worlds-best-countries-for-women-2021/

It's a not-uncommon rhetorical tactic people use for many other topics, too. I remember some years ago on MTS we were talking about healthcare and I made the case that health insurance is a form of what people called at the time "socialized medicine", because people pay insurance premiums into a pool (managed by a for-profit company), and then the benefits funded by the premiums get doled out based on who needs their healthcare subsidized at the time of need. IOW, health insurance (all insurance, really) is a socialized asset collection and redistribution scheme. One of the regulars there kept trying to invalidate my argument by trying to trip me up on the term "risk pool". Specifically, did I know what one is? We went back and forth for a few pages on the relevance of the question (I said it wasn't; he ignored relevance and kept pushing the question) and I said, let's say I don't know what it is, so now what? His reply was that since I didn't know what a risk pool was, then nothing I had to say about the topic could possibly be valid, since to his argument I was ignorant on what a risk pool is. The strategy of course is to ignore the core point in a bid to win the entire argument on a strictly semantic point. It's what people who have a weak case throw against the wall hoping it sticks.

I guess I can take Jim’s word for all that. I thought maybe you were suggesting that Leyland had made positive contributions to the organization's current approach to roster management, player advancement, and development.

Victory from the jaws of defeat. The NFL has been thwarted.

Looks like the Lions might be choosing the “take a big lead early and blow it late” method of losing today. A refreshing change.

Well, I didn't say it would be a smart move on their part.

I would think if you're hiding out in a building, chances are you won't contrast against the people out and about in the neighborhood.

How did Leyland contribute to roster management, player advancement, and development? Honest question.

How bad do you have to be at your police officer job that you think the only way you can stop a 60-year-old confined to a wheelchair from going someplace is to empty your clip into him?

I can't imagine hardened gun nuts like them would want anything to do with f****ty liberal radical leftist Canada. What I can imagine is that they were hiding out in a place they figured white people would be the least likely to be found, trying to buy time to arrange for a way to get to Florida.

You watch a lot of cop shows, don't you?

Al and Chris have been working together in their current capacity since 2017. All through that year, 2018, 2019 and 2020, they made several dumb trades, iffy free agent signings, and ground this franchise to a 198-345 record, a win percentage of .365. All of a sudden, in 2021, they've make solid signings, a couple decent trades, and improved their record to almost .500. I wonder what was different about 2021? Hmmm ...

I know, right? They won 60 games in 2021. Half a billion dollars gets them to, what, 68? Seventy? So where do they get the other 20 or so wins to contend for a playoff spot?

Oh god would I ever love to see this. Probably it wouldnt matter, but then again, maybe something like this would help put a damper on legalized gambling before it rose to the level of public and social health crisis.

Wasn't there once a woman deposed who testified that Trump raped her when she was 13? I think that came out a couple or three years ago, maybe?

Just a reminder that more people voted for Hillary than for Trump.

They are already enforcing the laws on the books and are punishing people beyond a slap on the wrist. Cruel and unusual punishment won’t reduce crime. It never did.

This just baffles me. It feels as though Republican legislators simply want the people to shoot and kill each other on a massive scale, since they definitely know that this will happen, and yet they still want to make guns as easy to obtain as any items you might impulse-buy at a Walmart. I'm still trying to figure out why they would want this.