TBayXXXVII

Keep in mind, I said in my initial post that people living together and sharing expenses, should be able to file joint returns. So, if the two men are sharing the house and expenses, where are their wives living? Do they each own their own house? So two couples own 3 houses so that the two high earners can file jointly and save on taxes? If the women aren't bringing in a lot of money, how are they living in those houses? How are they not getting investigated?

Why would that make sense to do? You'd have 2 brothers who are married... filing jointly, their wives are filing as single. So, 2 couples filing 3 returns instead for 2 returns. That sounds like a really stupid idea. If only one is married, the net is the same. Two brothers filing jointly one wife filing as single. So, 3 people 2 returns. How is that different then the husband and wife filing joint returns and the brother filing as single? Example: Joe & Tom are brothers Joe is married to Jane Tom is married to Tammy Why would it make sense to the 4 of them for Tom and Joe to file jointly while Jane and Tammy file as single? If only Tom is married, but he files with Joe while Tammy files as single... how is that different than Tom & Tammy filing jointly and Joe filing as single?

Same on the left, those "men" hate women too, we just call them gay.

Millennials switched parties?

Who cares? If they're living in the same household, no different than a married couple, why can't they get the same tax breaks/benefits if they're sharing the same expenses.

They can do that without "marriages". It's even in their best interest to do that if they force everyone to file their own taxes instead of joint. Still, the easy thing to do is let any two people who live together, file jointly.

They are the kings and queens of hypocrisy, just like politicians.

I know, right? They would be a net positive for Italy. Italy should welcome them with open arms.

Williams, definately.

He very well may be good enough to do that, I don't think HE is the problem. I just don't know how he'll be on the field long enough to make that kind of impact on both sides of the ball. I think if Coen was smart, he'd use Hunter where he's at his best and could make the biggest impact and use him almost exclusively there, but find ways to get him on the field on the other side of the ball from time to time. Let him perfect one side of his game first, then let him grow with the other side. They have 5 years and it's not like he's a lynchpin to get them over the hump this year.

Probably the only type of league I'd draft him in. DND (at ADP), in every other type... especially dynasty. Dynasty (non-IDP): My guess is that he's a top 5 pick. Pass. If he's going top 5, that's what, pick 17 in Rd? Maybe, depending on who's there. R3, I'd take him. Keeper: I'd be ok with him as a WR5 or 6... whatever round that is that I'd choose that route. I wouldn't want to have to count on him to start for anything more than as a bye week filler. Re-draft: Looks like he's going as WR30 (#66 overall). In leagues where you can start 3+ WR's, you're drafting him to start if you're taking him in R6. Nope. Someone else can have him.

Guess we found out that the Jags only player worth drafting at value is their kicker.

The federal government shouldn't be involved in personal contracts. I say remove same and opposite sex marriage from the governments purview. This would open the door to fixing a ton of other issues.

Yeah, not a big deal.

Gaslighting articles like this, do more harm than good. I just now read that her accuracy rating ranked 89th out 92 (first game scores), this year. People watched first hand that she was bad (kind of proving my guess from my prior post just minutes ago, wrong - I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt). I mean, just come out and say something like "First day jitters possibly got to her, just like so many other people in every walk of life. I think she'll be fine, just like other umpires who had rough first games but had long quality careers". I mean, why can't you write that? This article was mostly player and coach opinions. Really? Everyone knows they're not going to tell the truth. Look at that first pitch, you see the smirk Wentz gave when looking towards the outfield. He's quoted in the article as saying: “I try not to focus on the zone, to be honest with you. ... I thought it was good though.” LOL, GTFOH, EVERY pitchers ALWAYS focuses on the strike zone... 100% of the time. They do it because they want strike calls. If they know that they can be an inch of the plate outside and get a strike call, they're going to paint that spot all focking night. Also in the article: "McCullough was seen in the Marlins dugout with his palms held up as if asking about the pitch call. He said after the game it’s not unusual to question a close called strike." Yeah, uh, there was nothing "close" about that pitch. Simply, write a fair article without getting player and coaches opinions and call it a day. She could've also done herself a favor and say "Looking back, I made more bad calls than I'd like, but I have done better in the past and I will do better in the future. Sorry players [give a chuckle], it was game 1." It's not like every player in MLB had a great debut. They'll understand.

So, just watched the link from the OP, her eyes tell me that she knew she focked up and was slightly in shock to the realization that people were watching specifically with eyes on here and the first pitch, she got colossally wrong. That said, I didn't watch the game, because I don't care about a random Braves/Marlins game... female umpire or not. If I were a gambling man, I'd be willing to bet that she was right about 98% of the time, just like the men. It's funny on just how bad that call was, but it's not even a big deal. It's even funnier that they saved it. If I were her... I want nothing to do with THAT ball, but I'd take the last ball of the game. Probably a much better memento.

To be fair, society has always had lower standards for women than men... women (opportunist leftists who need to create victims where there aren't any, so that they can be preyed upon), just want to ignore that and blame men for it.

LOL, thanks. My post was a joke.

Was mom distracted because she was influencing?

Nailed it.

They're NOT owned by ABC? I'd say they are based on this. ETA: Communist outlet says ABC shut it down.

Poor choice of wording for thread title. It's one high school, not the whole school system. Both links say it's only one HS.

Shrek? Worst... Golden Child? Showtime? Vampire in Brooklyn?

Yup.