You mean adults don’t need counselors, stuffed animal and puppies available when someone happens to speak at their campus with whom they disagree?

Though I find Milo annoying (but not “dangerous”), you might pay attention to the fact that when someone wants to challenge him during his talks he actually DOES have a dialogue with them, lets them offer their view and then he offers his, usually backed up with data. That’s not an exchange?

I find it so unfortunate that there are so many naysayers whenever there is a positive story of someone working their way out of debt. They want to think that it is impossible merely because THEY THEMSELVES have not been able to achieve the same; it’s like lobsters dragging escaping lobsters back into the pot.

Taking on extra jobs and giving up everything except the bare essentials is not how you grow wealth in the long term, which is how one gets to financial stability. 

If that’s what it takes to get out of a situation you don’t want to be in for the next decade, why not?

Because most people can’t think ten minutes into the future much less a year or two?

These articles don’t serve much purpose to actually helping people with financial stability.

What a surprise; the usual backlash of “there is no way someone could do that!” even though the article is about someone who has done EXACTLY that.

So let’s see: there were two pass interference penalties of which one you thought was “questionable” (pro tip: had he actually spent a little time looking back for the ball like the receiver was, it would NOT have been interference, but you can’t run a guy of of bounds without looking back for the ball; he looked once…

Did they have third down conversions in the second half? I thought they had a stretch of like six failures in a row. (I would have to check.)

What is wrong with calling someone a gendered insult if it matches their gender?

Yes, language changes over time as a function of how it is used in society, but if that happens it should be naturally and not by fiat. I realize the author was only “suggesting” it, but there have been many articles (check HuffPo and Slate) trying to push this same issue, and it would not surprise me to see someone…

I’m from New England so I am obviously rooting for the Patriots, but if they don’t make it, I hope it’s Minnesota.

So is this all overthinking things?

My point is that it is not a decision that needed to be made on the fly AT ALL (nor should it be); the situation was completely known before the play even began, which is that allowing a catch is fine (especially to avoid pass interference) and is even PREFERRED because if he catches it does down inbounds, game over.…

But that IS all he had to think about: play past the last guy, stay close, let him make a catch, use my HANDS AND ARMS to wrap him up. He should not go for the ball nor try to prevent the catch in any way, as if he let’s him catch then the clock keeps running.

A pass interference call would almost definitely have lost the game so yes, he did need to be thinking about that.

I disagree. His entire thought process before the play even started should have been “I don’t need to prevent the catch nor even go for the ball; I just need to tackle anyone who catches the ball”. As a professional, he should not be on auto-pilot and should be able to recognize this is a special circumstance. He…

At first I thought those were Vikings fans :)

I feel this is a side effect of secondaries being taught to “hit” all the time rather than “tackle”, especially if they are coming up on a play or in on a play. The only time I see them tackle in these situations anymore is when Gronkowski catches a ball, because they don’t want to get their own bell rung trying to…