BullBuchanan

If you support Trump, why do you consider yourself independent? Usually that space is populated for people disaffected with past and current leadership. I'm also firmly Independent, but on the opposite side of the scale. Do you see the Republicans as being too left for your personal preference?

Bernie, who is economically a bit to the right of me but would have represented a shift in a direction that represents most of what I believe in. Warren, who is distantly to the right of me, but has a strong record as a consumer protection advocate. They were my only options this year at the presidential level. Keeping an eye on folks for 2024.

The fact that republicans try to lump in a right leaning conservative in Biden with some sort of extreme left wing socialism is just beyond comprehension. Nearly the entire democratic party with very few exceptions is comprised of right of center neo-liberals. People that are actually leftists, can't stand them. I have no intention of voting for Biden. He's just George Bush in a blue tie. I desperately wish Biden was all the things the extreme right accuses him of being. It's 10x cooler than he actually is, and I'd vote for that guy in a heartbeat. I do however hate the police. This was a nice little bonus though: https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/multiple-boats-in-distress-sinking-at-trump-boat-parade-on-lake-travis

You mean besides pushing our own country to the brink of civil war, greenlighting the abduction of american citizens without warrant, starting a trade war, assassinating the top Iranian general and bombing Syria?

Re: John McCain: "He's a war hero because he was captured. I prefer people that weren't captured" "I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me" Are you sure?

You just described every war that ever took place.

You just want to ESCAPE into the politics of your choosing. If you really wanted to do away with politics in sports, the easiest way to do it is to get the anthem and military displays out of there altogether. This post coming from Rhino is a complete joke. He's patient zero for this cesspool of conspiracy theories, nationalism and factless assertions.

His A Football Life is pretty great. With those knees he had no business playing at all, let alone winning a Super Bowl. Could you imagine getting knee surgery in the 60's?

No real surprises on that list from Sal.

Int %? it should be pretty clear that Rosen is the better talent. Barkley was viewed as a bust/disappointment for years until he hid in the shadows of the league just long enough to emerge as a "veteran" and all of the one time notions of being a #1 overall pick faded into obscurity with the likes of Jevan Snead . Matt Barkley has had 2 great games of football in the NFL. One of them was for the Bills and I was a big fan of it. That's about where the Matt Barkley story sits.

And he also has 44 touchdowns over that span. Considering he was a depth player his first two seasons, put up 997 yards twice, double digit TDs 3 times, and last year put up 997 over only 12 games played. I've watched him play a lot. He's no worse than 5th best in the league.

If you think Rosen has a noodle arm, you might not know much about him. He has a pretty good arm, and as far as athletic ability goes, is worlds apart from Peterman.

What does it say? Adams is a Tier 1 elite WR.

Because far better players had far worse rookie seasons that he did. Both the Cardinals and the Fins were/are dumspter fires. The fact that the team got better under Fitzpatrick should not be evidence against Rosen. Everyone should expect that. Fitz is a veteran and a very good football player who is one of a kind in his ability to be fantastic over just a long enough period of time to convince a team that he might be the answer to their question. In all my years of watching football, I don't think I've seen a high draft pick QB put in a worse situation than Rosen. That doesn't mean he even deserves to be a backup in this league, but it is what it is. Who dumps their 10th overall pick after 1 season?

Proving to be a wiser and wiser purchase with each passing year.

Tough call, but I'm going to go with George Wilson. I'd just want him to tell me his whole improbable story of going from high school star, to 3 year college starter at Arkansas and then everything that happened that led to him hanging out on practice squads for 3 years before switching to safety and having a very good NFL career.

It sounds to me like you recognize your SIL's ability to have a family without it being a "nuclear" family then. Do I have that right? That's all that's being stated in the mission statement, despite what some folks are trying to claim. Live and let live.

That's the point. Also it was not uncommon years ago, and still is in certain circles, for people to be outcast for not having children altogether. As someone that has been in the same unmarried and childless monogamous relationship for the last 10 years, I'm routinely chastised for it. If it was solely about my feelings, we'd never get married. Is it a big deal to me? No, but it exists. I don't let people put the pressure on me to make me feel like what I consider a family is not a family. I don't care what they think. I could see how in some situations that might be harder though, especially in cultures with strong ties to family tradition. I bet you can.

Also things which are not protected under our country's "free speech"

You should really try re-reading that.

I did not. I don't care about your psuedoscience. Edit: Ah, It's an OAN conspiracy theory. That's why this is all on the tip of the extreme right's tongues after going unknown for 40 years.

It wasn't? Could gay people get married or adopt children in 2005? Does society look down on unmarried parents or single parents? The "requirement" in question is the accepted social norm. here it is: "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable." Their claim is that that western culture states that a family is a mom, a dad, and a kid. Other cultures, like those in the east and native Americans have extended families with multiple generations living under one roof. Some cultures have children raised by neighbors or villagers. They are saying that they reject the notion that to be a family you need one Dad, one mom and a child. How do they do that? "by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another" It's a statement and an example. That's really it.

So, I read a line and state that the words mean what they mean and back it up with the context of the rest of the document. You reject all of that and say I don't know what words mean, because you have a conspiracy theory that you and the sandwich avatar guy are pushing. Occam's razor?

Maybe try reading up on what the word "requirement" means?

If you read the sentence and you see the phrase "disrupt requirement" and you interpret that as "completely eliminate", I'm honestly not sure if there are different words in the English language that would make it more clear. I mean that in all sincerity. The words mean what they mean.