DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry

It's at least partially fair in the historical context. Many a "states rights" advocate have merely been using "states rights" as code for an appeal to the bygone era of pre-civil rights progress. Not all, for sure. I've always seen libertarians as less concerned with centralized government so much as the idea of government at all. And I dont mean that in the radical sense. I mean, I could be wrong but I dont think the libertarian bloc of the US were totally cool with things like McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Well said. We have term limits. Its up to the voters to exercise them. This is a whole other can of worms though. Issues of incumbency and the "my senator/district spending project shouldnt be eliminated" idea.

I think the bold is oversimplified. They miss stuff as well. They just do it with less frequency compared to their peers. As for them being well-coached.....yeah, thats unquestionable. They're the best run organization in pro sports. Top to bottom.

One can make a pretty strong argument that term limits would actually lead to more divisiveness, more legislative paralysis, etc. I've never understood the idea of term limits as some sort of panacea for this country's apparent inability to work together collectively.

This is embarrassing.

It's totally fine to mention it....I guess. But to act like its going to be some dispositive force that shuts the team down is just so silly. We've seen many people on this team lose big games...either for the Falcons (Ryan, Julio, etc.) or earlier in their career. They're still playing, right? I don't think its a media problem because I think its a "people" problem. Theres an innate drive to connect events together in some interconnected narrative. Much of time, its totally ridiculous.

wut? This is kind of awful.

And is also significantly more likely to miss additional time next year. Gronkowski is a generational player. But he's a generational player that hasnt played a full season's worth of games since 2011. Tough to count on him.

Nope.

Not really but whatever. This whole narrative is for hot takez sportz tawk. I'm not the slightest bit concerned about the players or the coaching staff. And as for the Patriots fans not being arrogant......gtfoh. You and I both know that's flatout false. Justified arrogance perhaps, but lets not act like the fans in and around the city of Boston are a collection of humble and thoughtful sports fans.

The "mental anguish of blowing a lead" is so lazy and boring.

To the bold: wut. As for the notion that the Patriots "embarrassed" the Falcons in the Super Bowl.....yeah not so much. Disappointment and embarrassment arent the same thing.

I doubt he throws TDs at the same rate as 2016. I think you'll see a drop back in his TD% to the high 5s. Which, assuming an average number of attempts (570) would prorate to about 32 TDs. As for the Hall of Fame thing.....who the heck knows. If I had to bet on it, I'd say he doesnt get in, which is kind of stupid. But again, who knows. The fact that people have Eli penciled into the HOF despite being an inferior QB than a number of his contemporaries that are unlikely to reach the HOF tells us that the HOF isnt a pure meritocracy.

Well there's a feedback thing there, right? I'm sure folks who find themselves compulsively attracted to children are aware of the repugnance of their "condition" through social discussions, etc. So it makes sense that they could seek treatment/counseling for something that is roundly rejected by society. It doesnt necessarily mean their discomfort is internal aka a self-identified mental disorder. Now, as for the overall question.....IDK man. I see the merit in both sides. Some behavior is such that "stigma" isnt the determinative factor on whether or not its objectively bad. Pedophillic urges would be in that camp, IMO. While I appreciate the notion of these things being of unclear origin and beyond the bounds of "control" to some degree, for social order and general welfare, things like this are "stigmatized" because its destructive compulsion that impacts third parties. However, I do genuinely understand the thought experiment inherent in the question. The line between thought and action is always a blurred one, and frequently a difficult idea to grapple with when it comes to analysis of inchoate offenses. If Joe ABC lives a nominally productive life (job, rent, food, etc) but has a compulsion that forces him to think about pedophilia every night but never ever forces him to act on it, can you really say he has a mental disorder? To me, it seems the argument would be in the "compulsion" aspect rather than whether he acts or not. If something "forces" you to think about the same thing over and over, it would seem theres some version of mental disorder there. It seems like it would be better to focus on acceptance/destigmatization of words like "mental disorder" rather than trying to sift through the pile to drill down on the infinite permutations of mental disorders. Then again, people are terrible and questions like this are inherently rabbit hole-ish. So who knows.

Well done.