dickleyjones

Was it desperation when gronk unretired and won a championship? If it works, it will have been a good decision. I see little downside.

oh yeah you heard them beg for it? cool.

that would mean Tre looks bad, which he doesn't. only foolish tbd posters look bad on this topic.

haha as this thread goes, we just keep adding to the list of assumptions. pure brilliance on full display.

So you admit you assume. That's good. You should stop drawing conclusions from assumptions though. That's bad. Considering we don't know and only assume, i'm willing to give tre the benefit of the doubt. He has earned that by being an excellent player, leader, teammate, and community member.

awww, another thread of people pretending to know things they don't actually know! i think tre has earned the benefit of the doubt.

hahahah "proved" i mean, feel free to have an opinion, and you clearly do, but your hypothesis is faaaaaaar from "proved"

@Adamb412 well he will probably eat lunch or something, so failure averted.

they did. they didn't. they won. you are wrong.

holy christ wtf. doesnt matter what "side" one is on, those examples are pathetic. holy christ wtf. doesnt matter what "side" one is on, those examples are pathetic. holy christ wtf. doesnt matter which "side" one is on, those examples are pathetic.

haha yes indeed divide and conquer is alive and well...no need to look further than this very thread. we need an alien invasion or something, people might actually realize how similar we really are. oh well, let the foolish, needless, dysfunctional infighting continue !

Good to see the hyperbole is alive and well. Americans sure aim to please.

it is not inevitable. even literally. being "healthy for 3 straight years" (a dubious claim) has no bearing on the future at all.

In Canada we have first past the post and multiple parties, so it is definitely possible. Realistically only 3 parties (right, middle-left, left) hold any power and the third party has never held a majority, but right now the two left parties are working together as a majority. i like that they are forced to compromise to a point because they must work with each other or do nothing. FPTP is crap, but at least we have more than one party which seems makes it less terrible.

But he got better!

Just had my own run in with a firearm in Canada. It is a sad story. man very close to me was assaulted several times by his wife (who is from Texas). On one occasion, she held a gun to his head. After her arrest, that gun was found hidden in their bedroom, a prohibited weapon in Canada, smuggled across the border, with no license or anything. she faces serious charges here. I'm wondering, when one day she inevitably returns to Texas, how easy will it be for her to get another firearm? And does it seem right that she should have the privilege of owning a firearm, ever again? This is a person who has proven herself dangerous and reckless, but on paper only in Canada's eyes (unless there is a system our two countries share?).

Easy is it? It is more complicated than you pretend. Abortion to save the life of the mother was permitted by the French Medical Academy in 1852, to be revoked by the Vatican in 1895. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12335904/ In the US "Abortifacient advertising was highly effective in the United States, though apparently less so across the Atlantic. Contemporary estimates of mid-19th century abortion rates in the United States suggest between 20% and 25% of all pregnancies in the United States during that era ended in abortion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion So, it was accepted by a large amount women at that time at least. The point is, it was not "unthinkable", and it was quite common at least in the USA. 25% is a large number.

it would have been helpful if you worded the question clearly. incidentally, i'm seeing multiple examples in italy, england and north america where abortion was legal in the 1600s, depending on circumstance. it was illegal in more places, no question, that much i will agree with. France's perception and laws changed later (they started to regard it as family planning in the 1800s). if you need me to cite those examples, i will. point is, it's not accepted fact that abortion was illegal everywhere before 1920. the article i responded about says "The Bolsheviks introduced abortion in 1920 explicitly to break up families in order to make the survivors loyal only to the state. Prior to that, abortion was unthinkable. " turns out, it was accepted many places, legal in some, far from "unthinkable".

i didn't "have to" go anywhere. i merely answered your question just as you asked, and because i answered it you are posing a new challenge now?

Will Aristotle do? He wrote about the difference between lawful and unlawful abortion. he wrote about "delayed ensoulment" which described how before a certain amount of time in the womb, the unborn was not considered to be human.

spewing nonsense as if it were fact. abortion unthinkable before the 1920's? abortion has been around since ancient times. i mean, i'm ready to have a reasonable conversation and many others are as well. but when you post nonsense like this it makes it difficult to take you seriously.

Ah yes, only "the left" twists language. The constant hyperbole here is tiresome.

very good!

i did. and i agree it is odd although we aren't talking about a straightforward question. as for american outrage - i thought constant outrage was your thing. right or left, it's outrage pretty much 24/7.