ThreePointTakedown

It was Eiter, but ya.

I would think offering him the AHC position should indicate their level of trust with the keys to the car if the HC were unavailable for one reason or another. Seems more like lip service at this point. Also, not unexpected considering the recent history of the program. Kind of like, I imagine, how Matt felt when he was passed over for HC job the last time. Knowing how he felt, not staying on the staff for long should tell you a bit about his feelings, I can't imagine Pearsall is kept around. If he stays, I would be shocked. Stranger things have happened.

A question that usually comes up when an offended person offers the option of 'just find a way to protest the thing without offending people'. Do you have any suggestions? What would or could be less offensive and still advocate for a point I/we feel strongly enough about, to protest? Simpler solution, be offended, but understand that making that suggestion promotes the argument that freedom is only for some but not all opinions.

No problem. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/facts-not-fear-how-welcoming-immigrants-benefits-new-york-city/#:~:text=Although they are ineligible for,%2C state%2C and federal taxes. Quoted from the piece. Undocumented immigrants[10] support economic growth, pay taxes, and keep our city and economy running as essential workers. Although they are ineligible for Social Security, Medicaid, and most public benefits, undocumented immigrants help sustain[11] these vital entitlement programs by contributing billions of dollars into Social Security[12] and billions more into local, state, and federal taxes. In 2021, undocumented immigrants contributed[13] $30.8 billion in total taxes nationally, including $18.6 billion in federal income taxes and $12.2 billion in state and local taxes. In New York State, undocumented immigrants paid[14] $3 billion in taxes. Undocumented immigrants make up approximately 3.2 percent of the U.S. population, but 4 percent[15] of the country’s workforce. Undocumented immigrants are the backbone of many vital industries across New York. 70% of undocumented workers in New York are essential workers.[16] How much we spend to deny entries, rather than simply documenting people and allowing them to go through the process to attain citizenship, is entirely our own cost. The lines are made up and the scores don't count.

How much weight should your opinion carry with others? Do you have evidence to back it up or will you just believe it until proven incorrect?

Given an opportunity to help someone, potentially, fix a mistake. You decided to do this. Classy. Makes me think you don't really care that much about things being correct or accurate. So if anyone else can tell me what they feel is inaccurate about this story, please let me know?

I feel no need to participate in your echo chamber. I've stated my case. It hasn't changed. Your one-off cases do not prove any other point than people commit crimes. If this is all you have, which I imagine it is, you are lacking. Crime is down. Way down. Immigrants commit less crime than naturalized citizens. They pay into and often take less from social safety nets. In cities with high immigrant population and cities that get buses of immigrants sent to them, crime is WAAAAY DOWN. You aren't going to win this one. I have a feeling you know that too and it scares you. Immigration is good for this country as much as you want to stop it from happening. You will lose. And I can't stop myself from laughing at you bigots for stroking each other with these stories. Last one to comment, wins. Go!

I thought I answered this before. But may be mistaken. What needs correction?

Can you give us a run down of what is really happening?

which parts of the story?

Fossil fuels are quite energy dense. This is a fact. We've advanced the technology from coal and steam to cleaner burning fuels from petroleum. When we moved to cars and away from horses. Cities got cleaner. Less horse manure and fewer dead horses. More exhaust and smog. So we traded one negative for another. Now we realize that 125 years of that new negative has and IS causing a ripple that will undeniably change the way we live on this planet. With that being said, if it could solve or mitigate the problem brought on by fossil fuels, should we not explore alternatives regardless of today's cost? Considering how cheap it could be in the future considering how incredible our threshold for advancement is at this point.

That claim was never made. I can appreciate you trying to think critically on this one. Well done but near miss.

If you can't or just don't want to answer the question, fine. How is it helpful that you type out this as if its a definitive answer to anything? 24-13=11 11+13=24 24-11=13 Those are a few of the possible answers. Not sure what those numbers mean.

Roughly 70,000 civilians were killed in our time in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Seems a bit of a stretch that we were there for human rights with that kind of a stat sheet. And there you go again trying to read someone's mind and make unfounded accusations.

Seems like you're not asking the obvious question. 'our military keeps us safe and continues to enable our freedoms', but does it? Someone with their hand on their gun, regardless of your situation, will make you seriously consider what you might think or say to that person. And definitely how you answer any question posed by that person. Being the police, as any police officer will likely tell you, is stressful and not all of them have the tools to deal with that stress. Do we, as a country, have those tools? Considering we send out troops to places, often in blatant violation of the constitution, I would say NO. Defense contractors contribute to political campaigns and lobbyists. Economic and political ramifications to districts with military bases. One party that tends to send the military to skirmishes more than the other. Sounds, to me, like a big game of 'justify the budget'.

And women?

Seems as if you're lashing out as a way to cope with not understanding, at all, what I'm talking about. Read a book. Coping skills might help you immensely. If that doesn't work, the rubber vs glue defense is a classic for a reason.

And the other participant in the discussion shows all the hallmarks of being upset? Typing in lower case, not cursing, or name calling. Typing out a coherent argument for the support of one position over another. But being told to calm down as they 'seem' upset. Is and I cannot stress this enough, IS a tactic of abuse and manipulation. Sorry, I needed to add some more. You've transitioned from defending a manipulative tactic to defending the opinion. Which is not was happening when I made the comment. Again, the expressing of an opinion does not and should not get you labeled as anything but that is not what happened here. That you are trying to rehab a comment that was not in favor or one side or another but was meant for one individual in the conversation, does not paint you in a flattering way. Seems with the last few questions you are mudding the water of any future conversations. Also a manipulative tactic. Do you even understand what was said that I felt I needed to point it out? There was no anger on either side. I understand that. But one side made the decision to invoke anger in the other. This has a chilling effect on speech. It is a way to gaslight an opponent. It is done when one feels not in control of a situation. Hence the manipulation aspect of the tactic. The argument fell by the wayside in favor or gaslighting. Which indicates to me that one side was uncomfortable where the conversation was going and lacked the tools to get it back on track in a healthy way.

Classic abuser tactic.

Yelling at children for not doing a made up thing in order to satisfy a fictional criteria in your mind is the peak of mental health, btw.

Translation: 'The student fails to live up to arbitrary expectations of patriotism. I could exercise this silently, by not watching the sports ball game for which they play or contributing, financially, to any of their future endeavors. However, this emotion is far too strong and I must shout it from the mountaintop. In the hopes it serves as a beacon to likeminded individuals. Signaling they have an ally in me and support to voice their unregulated emotions at mostly teenagers. Likely as not supporting this movement will encourage some among us to lash out violently at perceived enemies. But they should've just done the thing in the first place. A thing, remember, they didn't know I found so offensive and likely did for no reason other than their preference in preparation for an incredibly stressful contest being played in front of millions of people. Giving grace to children is above me at this time.' But ya they should care about what you think. Any suggestions on their post game or rebounding advice?

Who gets to decide when the threshold of 'foolishness' has been met? Twitter poll? Do the ticket holders get a say? Seems as if you are frustrated and looking for someone to unload it on. Have you talked to anyone about the origins of this frustration? Because it seems as if your reasons for anger are a bit misplaced. You could find a bit more peace if you found a healthy outlet for your emotions.

Once again they look to replace the current head coach with a former coach that has taken a significant amount of time from coaching and coincidentally works in the same department on campus. If I was Pearsall, I'd be pretty upset. Considering the same move bookends his time there it shouldn't be that surprising. That they tried making a change by bringing in an outsider and did not like the result. I guess it was just a matter of time before Matt was brought back. Who else could they trust to run the program? Keeps the donors happy.

This is a point for how there is no such thing as common sense. Do rich people need to eat more or wash their clothes more or fill their car with gas more or any of the many things that people need to pay for to live? The answer is no. https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/BTB25-PreCon4-15.pdf Transportation. To get to work, a low-income person often must obtain a personal car, especially in rural areas that lack public transportation. Without a solid credit history, a low-wage earner may be forced to finance a car with a "sub-prime" lender, which charges a much higher rate - sometimes double or triple the prime rate. That can cost thousands of dollars extra in finance charges. Low-wage earners also are typically limited to cheaper and less efficient cars, which cost more to operate in fuel and repairs. In many low-income metropolitan neighborhoods, automobile insurance is more expensive - as much as $1,000 more a year . Household goods. Low-income areas are often economically isolated. There is less business development, therefore less retail competition. The only choices in shopping for groceries, clothing, medicine, furniture and other household necessities may be smaller stores that lack the economy of scale to offer discount prices. Some cash-strapped consumers resort to rent-to-own businesses to buy furniture, appliances and electronics for lower monthly payments, but in the long run they pay as much as two to three times more than cash buyers do . Housing. Affordable rental housing is in short supply, which often means low-income families pay considerably more than the recommended 30 percent of income on housing. Those who want to buy a home often wind up, because of a poor credit history or a lack of lending agencies in the area, with a mortgage from a "sub-prime" lender that charges twice the rate of a prime loan. The higher interest can add as much as $500 to the monthly mortgage payment. In rural areas, the poor often opt for manufactured housing because it's initially less expensive. However, a mobile home costs more to finance because it's personal property, and, unlike a house, it depreciates in value. Furthermore, the cost of homeowner's insurance in lower-income neighborhoods can be as much as $300 more than higher-income neighborhoods ../ Health care. Only 30.8 percent of people earning $25,000 a year or less have health insurance paid by employers, compared with 79.7 percent of people earning $75,000 or more, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (2016). For low-income families, that means more out-ofpocket expenses for health care. Many are forced to choose between filling a prescription or a sack of groceries. Delayed medical care typically results in worsened health conditions, which are even more expensive to treat . ../ Child care. The working poor are often single parents who must arrange for care of their children. Nationally, the cost averages $9,589 per year per child, which is difficult to absorb into a modest budget (New America Care Report , 2015). As a disproportionate bite of a low income, it can squeeze out other necessities . ../ Financial services. Poor neighborhoods and rural areas often lack mainstream financial institutions. As a result, the areas are targets for predatory financial industries, such as check-cashing outlets and payday lenders, which charge high fees for the convenience of quick cash and credit. Low-wage workers may spend 2-3 percent of their pay just to obtain cash and can pay up to 521 percent annual percentage rates if they fail to repay loans due on the borrower's payday (Pew Trusts, 2012). The higher fees, finance charges and other costs add up to hundreds or thousands of dollars spent by low-income families every year. Unfortunately, low-income families often lack the skills and resources to be savvy consumers. They are less likely to have access to the Internet, newspapers and other resources to comparison shop and learn good money management in order to get the most for their dollar. At the end of the day, it costs more to be poor. (copy/pasted from the site)

What is the point of this comment? Poor people should get up and move to that state. Is that your solution?