Not to mention that GP post does exactly this:
like the vaccine that was supposed to sever your connection to God
I don't know that I ever saw anybody claim this, yet this is the argument that is presented as needing debunking.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm not interested in getting in a stats discussion when I don't even know what they're actually measuring. Maybe they don't take into account the fantastic offensive lines that were in front of him, so there were relatively few opportunities to draw roughing calls. Or maybe they don't take into account the fact that his offense ran a lot of short-yardage dump-offs so, again, there weren't as many opportunities. Fine. There are a million ways to slice and dice stats and most of them are misleading.
Do any of those breakdowns include splits for the 4th quarter in a 1-score game or on game winning-drives? Because in those situations, if a defender got near him after he threw the ball, you can guarantee a penalty flag was coming out. Just like most "star" players, but it was particularly obvious with Brady.
OP is about globalism's corroding influence on individual countries, but you can't let go of the fact that you disagree with him over the "JQ" so instead of agreeing with him on this single-sentence post to try to find common cause, you name call like a feminized bitch.
Can't complain about Jews, because that makes you a socialist. Or a racist, depending on whether they're a race or a religion.
Can't complain about Zionism, because that makes you an anti-Semitic socialist.
Can't complain about globalists, because that makes you a crypto anti-Semitic socialist.
Can't complain about individual Jews like Soros, because see above.
But complain all you want about any other group or individual, because those deserve criticism.
... and I still don't understand why you think that name calling will work here, of all places.
When someone's litmus test is, "if he doesn't come out and denounce Israel and name the Jew," I suppose he's no different than the other options.
Otherwise if you look at the individual appointments, despite a few head-scratchers, the cabinet he's assembling is worlds better than any other of my lifetime.
You can't see people's looks on the internet.
Holy Missing The Point, Batman.
simple logic it's going to be extraordinarily unlikely.
I'm just going to roll my eyes and walk away from this one because it's got nothing to do with "logic", and at best it would have something to do with "probability," but only if you have a midwit's understanding of probability.
I've never seen someone who was both attractive and intelligent.
Have you ever interacted with people outside of the internet? Because it's really not that uncommon.
My AP calculus and physics classmates included my state's Jr. Miss competition winner.
All you have to do to be a successful woman, in the eyes of nearly everybody, is take reasonably good care of yourself. Don't get super fat, don't accrue mountains of debt or fatherless children, and limit your promiscuous sex to some form of serial monogamy.
If you can do that, it doesn't really matter how attractive you are. People generally won't have a problem with you.
If the dude is even 10% genuine, from the interviews I've listened to him, it would be an FBI full of Indians who love the USA and take no shit from career government bureaucrats.
Ideal? No. Better than what we have? Absolutely.
Why the fuck is an 87 year old talking like a more retarded millennial?
No idea, but ...
George Takei
Stephen King
Rob Reiner
Mark Hamill
it's not exactly an uncommon thing. I just assume that they're all pedophiles at this point.
It's easiest to just assume that any large organization even tangentially related to health care was 100% complicit, from the top down, in pushing the jab.
I worked for a company that writes software to track jet engine maintenance and they voluntarily pushed the jab, even after the federal mandate was rescinded.