jsnpritchett

Why do you care?

Oh, I respect plenty of people on here. You're just not one of them.

Nope. Go back and re-watch. She clearly says that she's never spoken to him and when she makes those statements about the people (in general) who live in the house, she then goes on to say that she really doesn't know what they believe because there seem to be inconsistencies between their outward appearances and their behavior. Again, if your takeaway after watching and listening to the full interview is what you keep saying, you're simply not being rational.

I don't feel the need to prove my financial status to anyone, much less on a message board to people I don't respect and don't ever want to meet in real life.

When you're being utterly illogical, it's not particularly useful to use logic against you. Any rational person who watched the full video you posted wouldn't draw the conclusion you did. So what's the point in even trying to convince you that what you said is wrong if you truly believe what you wrote? The person in the video didn't say anything remotely close to what you wrote.

Another area where I'd say you (Cals...) are likely wrong. Keep chalking up those L's, though.

Wrong again: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/police-clarify-unknown-person-mystery-pelosi-home-attack

Nothing you said deserved further comment, since it's clear that the writer didn't think 30% was less than a quarter. No need to rehash it again. You're wrong.

Then you're even dumber than I thought.

You guys are the delusional ones (and yes, I know Kotchman is just an "alt" account, but the moron behind it deserves to be called out for even imagining such crazy shit). You twist every little thing into some far-fetched conspiracy, when sometimes what is likely to have happened is far simpler and more logical. The attacker is clearly disturbed. In all likelihood, he had some sort of bad episode (whether fueled by drugs and/or his own mental issues), decided to act on some of the right-wing conspiracy theories he'd fallen prey to in recent years (as evidenced by his many, many posts and blogs on such topics), broke into the house looking for Nancy Pelosi, told Paul that he was Nancy's "friend" and that he wanted to wait for her to arrive, then Paul called 911, the cops show up, witness the attack, and they arrest the guy. There's no conspiracy there. Some of the confusion stems from the fact that the dispatch calls that have been released obviously aren't the actual 911 call. They're a dispatcher recounting what presumably the 911 operator tried to summarize for the dispatcher. Since the 911 operator wasn't directly communicating with Paul very much (every recent article says that he made the call surreptitiously), she was likely trying to interpret what he was saying. But, sure, keep your tinfoil hats on and live in world where everything is a conspiracy. You're sad, pathetic fools.

So I'm guessing that means that you didn't actually watch the whole video. Got it.

Did you actually listen to the full interview? She literally says she's never spoken to him, she has only seen his face one time, and that the other people who lived in the house act in ways that run counter to what they seem to espouse outwardly (e.g., having a BLM flag but calling the cops on Black people, etc.). She openly admits that she doesn't really know what anyone in the house really thinks--and, again, she has never spoken to the guy. How do you account for the content on his blog? Or are you already buying into the nutjob conspiracies that it's all fake?

I hope he gives up about 8 runs in the first to potentially tamp down the enthusiasm from some on here to sign him in the off-season--and then the Phillies come back to win 9-8.

Again: the data (which I still don't believe you've looked at) clearly says that 23% of men 18-29 say abortion is an important issue in the upcoming elections. Given the way the sentence in the first paragraph is constructed, any reasonable reader would conclude that the writer is still referring to people within the 18-29 age group, especially when the next paragraph refers to "all women" and "all men." There is zero evidence that the writer thinks 30% is less than a quarter, which was your original moronic statement. Move on.

I didn't admit you're right. Again, you seem to have an issue with reading comprehension. Your original post to which I replied ended with, " This poor crease thinks 30% is “less than a quarter”. To me, that’s very sad." I have very clearly shown that the writer did not, in fact, think what you said they did.

It's clear what was meant--especially when you actually look at the data, which you obviously didn't do. But go ahead and keep replying, trying to prove you're right, like you always do. You're wrong.

I read the article, looked at the accompanying data, and replied. Took maybe 3 minutes tops? And, no, you're the one who is wrong. It's right there in the data. 23% of men 18-29 say that abortion is an important issue to them in the upcoming election. That's "less than a quarter." Here's a direct link to the crosstabs, so you can see the data yourself (assuming you're capable of reading it correctly, which I'm now questioning...): https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23199969-crosstabs-politics-and-the-election-for-vice-news-age-subgroups When looking at men overall, that number rises to 30%. That's what the article says and what the accompanying data files say. If you think otherwise, you're simply wrong.

You're not reading the data correctly. To me, that's very sad... In the first paragraph, the writer is talking about men and women between the ages of 18-29. In the second paragraph, they're talking about the total sample, not just 18-29-year-olds.

"Manfred said the Angels sale process is “ongoing,” with the league working to conduct background checks of potential bidders before releasing any financial information to them. He declined to offer a timetable for the conclusion of a sale. “Probably too early to guess as to whether it will be done by opening day,” he said. “I think it is a really appealing franchise. I think there will be multiple bidders. When there are multiple bidders, it’s always more complicated.”

Season 2 will be on Peacock in the U.S. next week (I think it's either Thurs or Fri).

Now do his other 7 starts in the WS. (Side note: I actually like Verlander a lot and his overall post-season numbers are solid. Just strange that he collapses when they need him most.)

Yikes.

That's just a rumor, though.