This. JD had obviously lost it, but Fox refused to do anything. With even decent quarterbacking that year, we had a team good enough to at least challenge for a wildcard spot, but Fox killed us by keeping Jake in.
I don't see that it really matters if it was him or her. If its her, he was probably behind it, or tacitly approved. Or at very least, she was passing on information he gave her. Regardless, if I were another team, I would be very cautious about giving him a shot, especially irt how much money I am willing to pay.
I am a network engineer, spend most of my working days putting together networks and protecting them from internet and internal hackers, and I have no idea how to use Twitter. On the other hand, my 17 year old son (who probably doesn't know the difference between a Mac address and an IP) can navigate through it with ease while texting his friends at the same time.
Although that might be more due to the language they use than to the site or application itself.
If you work part-time, you must report the gross (before taxes) earnings for the weeks that you worked, and you must maintain your eligibility requirements. If your only employment was part-time and you have been separated, you may be eligible to receive benefits.
Can't speak for others, but overall I think life is pretty decent. I have seen some crappy things, but there is more good than bad. And the interesting thing is that i have traveled the world, and it seems that those that are living in more poverty stricken areas tend to enjoy life just as much as those of us in more well developed areas.
That being said, if you truly don't want kids, find a woman who can't have them. If you find one who could have them but doesn't want them, there is always a chance she might change her mind.
I don't know about two kinds of history, but there are two kinds of people who discuss and study it. Those that study it objectively and those that study it with an agenda already in mind. IMO, there is a tendency from some modern day debators to look back at how something was done in the past and look down on it with modern day hindsight. Its easy for you or others to criticize what was done, or to make comments about largest penis or some other hyperbole comment without even making any attempt at all to look at the event from the perspective of those that were making the decisions. Its always easier to judge than to objectively assess.
Here is an example of what I mean by revisionist History. Much has been made of Admiral Nimitz statement regarding the bombs not being a military necessity. And he did say that. But those that use that argument ignore other things he said. This is from the book Nimitz by E. B. Potter regarding a discussion he had with Edward Layton, Nimitz's intel officer for most of the war years, and a guy who understood the Japanese military culture of that time better than a 1000 modern day college professors. https://books.google.com/books?id=VK5kAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT316&lpg=PT316&dq=atomic+bombs+nimitz&source=bl&ots=PbGJxrKfBS&sig=OKbf0aDadzRNKSOxUSYxW6FT4JI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCWoVChMIpY3etdv3xgIVAXo-Ch3ADAxU#v=onepage&q=atomic bombs nimitz&f=false "Cdr Layton - If the emperor told the Japanese military to castrate themselves, many of them would do it. But to tell them to stop fighting was something else indeed. The result might be indecisive and many of them would continue to fight, unless the emperor could convince them that the only alternative was the complete destruction of Japan. Nimitz had already come to that conclusion himself, but wanted to hear it from his expert on Japan.
And even after the bombs exploded, and the emperor had told them to surrender, there were incidents in which the Japanese ignored, or in one case even attempted a coup which included placing the emperor under virtual house arrest. The Kyujo incident is what I am referring to. And in another incident that comes to mind, after hearing the Emperor's order, Admiral Ugaki, one of the Chief architects of Pearl Harbor, got in his plane and flew off to find an american ship to crash into. Fortunately he failed. But even after the massive shock of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were fanatics willing to continue to resist. The reality is that in light of the suicidal fanaticism that the Japanese had shown throughout the war, its not the least bit surprising that those that had fought them for four years thought the bombs might be the only way to get them to surrender.
Lets look at the originally intended target for the bombs, Germany. By feb of 1945, they knew they were beaten. From the most senior officer to the lowest private, almost none believed they had a chance. Yet they continued to fight unto the bitter end, a fight which caused far more deaths than those that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the germans were not as fanatical as the Japanese. If the germans didn't surrender, why would any rational person would think that the Japanese would?
I imagine if we had developed the bomb earlier and used it on the Germans in feb of 1945 and they then surrendered, We would be having this same debate, ie the Germans would have surrendered without the bombing, we were just doing it to show up the Russians, etc... Hindsight is not always 20/20.
That is not to say they couldn't have done things differently. There are always different ways things can be done. I might have done things different. But the method they used ended the bloodiest war in history, and that is a fact. The belief that something else would have worked better is an opinion. And facts are usually better than opinions.
Edited to add, I don't really take issue with you or anyone else debating the decisions that were made. Certainly they are open to debate and criticism. But to question their motives, and accuse them of dishonorable intentions, ie showing the Russians a big dick is more of a political based analysis than one based on historical fact.
Ok, I may be brainfarting here, but what is the CJ field?
Fwiw, I think that women that go into the IT field get treated better in many cases than their male counterparts, well in the network and security fields anyway. But women that go into that part of IT are relatively rare. In the 17 years or so I have been doing this, we have only had 5 women apply, and three of them got hired. Others were inherited through various mergers, and done fairly well. Not that I am complaining, the ones I have worked with were every bit as competent as their male counterparts, and deserved whatever they got. The idea of Sanders in the Whitehouse is worrisome. Generally speaking, extremist make horrible political leaders.
The effects of Meth are in many ways similar to mental illness. Sometimes its hard to tell the two apart unless you are an expert. And of course, sometimes mentally ill people take meth.
I have a friend who was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic when she was in her teens. I care very much for her, and it has been hard to watch the troubles she has had, but with her condition and the drug abuse that she has gone thru over the years. In truth, it amazes me that she has survived into her mid forties. Fortunately, her mom is fairly well off and has managed to keep a roof over her head, but I fear what might happen when her mom passes.
Criteria used - population density (the lower the worse)
Definitely don't agree with this. Guess the author just doesn't like small towns. One of the things I like about living in Winston (actually just south of Winston in Midway), is that I am close enough to go into town and do a few things, without having to regularly deal with the traffic and crowds in a place like the Triangle or Charlotte.
I have read a number of books on the subject, and that is mostly revisionist history. If you read the documents from the leaders of that time, there was very little dissension. Not to say there wasn't any dissension, but the dissenters were few and far between.
And as Chester Nimitz said, Hindsight is always more clever than foresight.
The point I was trying to make was that the DDay invasion wasn't absolutely necessary for us, but it was the right and proper military decision, even though it was a bloody affair for all involved (far bloodier than the bombing of Hiroshima). The Atomic bombing was more of a gray area, but based on the information they had at the time, it was probably the correct decision. As horrible as it was, an invasion of Japan would have been far more horrible.
Btw, the plan for the invasion of Japan was to use many more atomic bombs (as many as we could) in order to blast a path through Japanese defenses.
Being President of a Republican style democracy is about a lot more than one's political beliefs. You have to be a leader who can find common aspects with both sides in an agreement. You also have to convince people that your position is the best, be able to negotiate and give up something to get something you want more. You have to be as much a salesman and diplomat as a leader.
Neither Sanders nor Paul seems to have any of these qualities to the degree necessary to lead the US. Regardless of how you feel about her personally or politically, Clinton is the only one on the Democratic side who has shown these traits. On the republican side, its a bit more difficult to gauge, at least at this point.