Taro T

So, is English not your 1st language? Or do you have some personal definition of either the word "categorically" or "false" that the rest of us are supposed to magically know and accept? Because the statements in each of my replies to you are true and accurate.

The results are widely known and readily available. Only twice in the past 4 decades has a majority of ballots counted indicated that the Democrat wa the preferred candidate.

And only twice in the past 4 decades has a Democrat won a majority of the popular vote. Your point being?

Wish somebody with much better intertubes skills could do a little video montage of Fredo set to Day-o. Frraaaayyyy, is a Fraa-aaa-aaayyyyy-doh. Fredo come and me ratings go down. You at 6 points, 5 points, 4 points, 3! Fredo come and me ratings go down. Why oh why, ev'rybody pickin' on me? Fredo come and me ratings go down. Torment the Orange Mango, that is me. Fredo come and me ratings go down (Maybe somebody who's actually creative could do that justice?)

F###ing autocorrect.

You know they're just trolling Snipes at this point. The story is false as everyone should know that only undocumented illegal alien 6 year olds are allowed to hold the office of President of the United States as their age and nationality are unverifiable. All other 6 year olds must wait roughly 30 years to hold the office. ? Just how stupid of a story can we get them to fact check?

If true, and if THE John Roberts, would go a long way towards explaining some really head scratching SC 5-4 decisions.

That's because it ISN'T an ethnic slur. It's a slur against that one singular sibling from a successful 2 generation (or more) family that rode the short bus to school. It is disparaging. But not due to his common traits with his ancestors and siblings; but rather due to his lack of the traits that made them successful. It's not easy being Fredo. (Well, it is. But there are no accolades that come with it.)

When the bit with Navarro calling Trump Jr "Fredo" on Fredo's show came out was hoping somebody could find a clip of Fredo calling somebody else "Fredo.". Him being fine with the Guardian Angels guy referring to him as Fredo works as well. Fredo gonna Fredo.

No, it's not. But Cuomo just bought himself a new nickname that, in retrospect, seems painfully obvious. Father was a powerful man? Check. Successful bother following in father's footsteps? Check. Dumber brother gets things handed to him but still can't demonstrate any leadership nor sense and wonders why people consider him a goof? That's a huge check. Chris, you check all the boxes. Fredo it is. (Be glad Jim Rome didn't chose the nickname; it might've been even less PC in your eyes.)

It's supposed to be rather prestigious, so it's probably a cruller or 2, eh.

Let's hope it was to collect and preserve evidence and not to destroy it. (Also hoping it hasn't already been destroyed.)

He also received the Order of Canada in 2016. Wonder if he beat out Graham James for it. Disgusting.

Totally get that the partisan operatives are going to partisan operate, so to speak. But not all of the "journalists" that believe objectivity is passe come out of the political ranks. And further, one of the (if not the) best talking head of the last 20-30 years was Tim Russert who was Chief of Staff for Moynahan and also had held a high ranking position as an advisor in Mario Cuomo's regime. He'd hold everybody's feet to the fire regardless of affiliation. We need more like him, regardless of their background.

Theodore Geisel's estate must be held accountable!

Wonder if any of them ever step back and ask why when they do objectively present information that the interpretation of events that they come away with isn't the same as a significant portion of their audience/ the public? If not, why not? Shouldn't they be interested in WHY they feel (yes, that word was chosen intentionally) the need to spin what could/ should be presented objectively? If their interpretation of events is correct, shouldn't the events speak for themselves and others will come to that same conclusion? And regardless of which side of an issue someone believes they're on, if they can access the source material they can take the spin out entirely.

Danny Smith was sooooo bad, especially following in the footsteps of DeHaven. It's a close call as to which was worse. And, considering his lack of getting canned by Wade Phillips ushered in the Greggo Williams tear down of the defense, a case can be made Castillo only ranks 2nd.

See edit posted before your reply.

Seriously? Happens every day. Something that happens every day, nearly by definition, can't be amazing. (Edit: And this isn't directed specifically at PtR.)

Figured he'd last until the 1st cut down day (only because he was still here, not that he should've been here). Guess that false start and then being responsible for the linebacker that came late and ran right behind him was finally enough. It's a good day.

Wonder if they'd give a discount combining a (Canandaigua) Messenger subscription W/ a D&C one? Used to get both, but the D&C was just too expensive compared to the Messenger to continue justifying the subscription. Though the D&C Sunday business section is missed. That was good. (But kind of redundant W/ the RBJ.)

Ah, yes, the call for "common sense" gun laws. That phrase would carry more weight were most of the National stage politicians that liberals / progressives support not nut cases themselves. And the "other side completely refuses to discuss the issue.".

Katrina was earlier than that.

This in large part. There are enough on the "stronger gun control" movement side that have admitted that their goal is a total gun ban in the past that there is extremely little trust of them from the other side. Perhaps, if that side proposed actual legislation that ONLY included items such as better gun safety education and we saw how that actually got enforced and whether that was effective, then we might have a basis for deciding how / whether to bring additional modifications to existing gun laws. It also might help build trust across the sides if new legislation proposals weren't reflexively in reaction to a hyped shooting &/or if there was an acknowledgement that there are a lot of gun laws already on the books. IMHO, the biggest impediments to solving the problem of mass shootings is a lack of trust from both sides and an insistence of looking for major sweeping changes to one aspect of a multifaceted problem primarily when emotions are raw eroding even more trust.

Sent.