Other than the argument that sharing personal info about your ex is in poor taste (though everyone knows his ex and she’s shared her own story), I didn’t dislike what he said in his conversation with Caelynn. I didn’t feel like he was taking away from her story. In conversations we try to relate to one another.

Do they tear part of that down so that athletes can cross back and forth?

I think the idea is that the church considers both divorce and being gay sins, but it will still welcome both divorced and gay people. Of course, that still means that Page was right, and the church thinks gay people are sinful.

Nope! Not a paid endorsement. I play a lot of STW and was the weekend editor this weekend. From what I understand nobody around here really plays STW, so I wanted to write up a post about what I liked about the game and what it even is. (Because a LOT of folks have never played it or really read anything about it)

I work in education, we maintain a list of accredited institutions. Filter on “State” Run replace “State*” in Excel. Delete the ones with an actual state. Done. 45 seconds of work. 

Oh man! Burned by Brick!

Dude didn’t you read the first sentence of my statement?

There’s no denying though that she’s absolutely amazing at her job. 

There’s nothing “bad” about this interview.

Are you confusing English and British?

“Scotland”

And here with your comment you have perfectly demonstrated my point. There is no winning here, there is nothing he can say to satisfy you, and that’s not necessarily a personal you.

Guys, guys. Please. They can both be completely detestable, it’s not an either/or.

As silly as this is, I don’t know if anyone’s going to have their vote swayed by the reaction to illustrated mascot violence

Ok. I know that that’s the party line on crazy leftist twitter but here in reality including one person who is right wing (and modestly so at that) doesn’t mean the entire paper is “right wing” or a “cesspool”.

I like how including a single person who is mildly right wing in the opinion section (note: where people share different opinions and the pieces are not assumed to be statements of fact) to you means that the new york times, as a whole, is “right wing”.

They really tried to figure out who did it, interviewed tons of people. They even spoke with the dogs’ breeder and main suspect, Ernest Mal. They never got anything from him though, because Mal’s a mute.

All right, but apart from that what has capitalism ever done for us?

That’s what the point of my original post was. Nuance. He wasn’t a paragon of ethics, but he also want a complete piece of shit like a lot of liberals are trying to make him seem. 

Yeah, that wasn’t my point, but good job taking it to an extreme.