You can’t release a player and get a comp pick for him. The release means that the player does not count in the compensatory pick formula. We at least know that much about it.

It’s not a news story.  It’s an opinion piece that contains facts in it.  It’s not written to be neutral.

How is it a slippery slope?  Show your work or that’s fallacious.

Maybe it’s divided because people like you won’t wake up to call out poor behavior when you see it.  Maybe it’s divided because you make excuses for behavior by setting standards of proof that can never be proven, rather than if it’s likely to be racist.

Nothing is being prohibited. Your silly statements aren’t being prohibited. Those kids’ statements are being prohibited. What people like you don’t understand is that reactive speech is just as important as initial speech. So, when someone makes a statement or commits a symbolic act, a response may be appropriate.…

“Slanted journalism” as he complains about an opinion piece.

That reminds me of Dan Dierdorff when covering a Chiefs game, “Mike Cox was smothered on that play by the defender.”

Bill Browder gets stopped a couple times per year with Russia filing a red notice.  Then he ends up getting released.

More like, “we hate us cuz we anus”

That’s not usually how it works. It’s called subrogation. The insurance company pays your damages, then attempts to get the damages from the other party under your name.

Joke’s on you. I’ll just speak to you by singing falsetto...

I’m sorry that people are so shitty that you have to take such precautions for something that so many just take for granted.  

There should be a trained advocate chosen by the performer for each shoot. That advocate meets with the performed ahead of time and has authority to temporarily halt shooting.

Prosecuting them for discussing a matter of public concern when the President provides the information? The only sand here is located in your head.

Says the guy who thinks it is propaganda because it doesn’t align with his own views.  The problem with making such conclusory and unsupported declarations of bias is that it easily is made back against you.

I think we are still waiting for your first thought, because that sure as hell wasn’t much thinking there.

For the encore, 1996 Levi’s Wide Leg...

The biggest detriment to Medicare for all will be dealing with the job losses from the insurance industry, which means a likely phase-in over many years if it happens. That will still leave people exposed to lack of coverage for years because few have the guts to deal with the harm to those whose jobs are lost.

“lunch at school isn’t a right” is one of the saddest statements that I have read lately.

Your post is asinine.  Why are you comparing private to government entities here?