cle_guy90

This is bizarre but when I am not logged in the northeast construction works but when I am it just loads to a white page. I even deleted my history. This is true for both the mobile and regular versions.

It'd have to be somewhere with access to a lot of public parking because it'd be a destination for the area for sure.

Don’t know if anyone else is experiencing this but the only part of the forum that would load is the northeast Ohio construction and projects. I can access individual links when they show up in the most recent but that’s about it.

Are they recreating it or just having a random commercial tenant occupy it?

And you would think at that sale price they are going to have pressure to make it worth it which could cause them not to be as generous with the union. Pure speculation though.

The irony of us steel being foreign owned. Edit: Also, $55 per share just seems like a crazy high price.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6307e2bf47190a1ab621acc2/t/65673d802be1cd0cd6763612/1701264768460/PRICE+LIST+The+Guardian+11-27-2023.pdf Good news. Almost all the condos are sold and I don’t believe they are all fully finished yet. Let’s get more condos going!

https://www.cleveland.com/realestate-news/2023/12/clevelands-newest-skyscrapper-is-topped-off-as-sherwin-williams-hq-reaches-milestone.html In the article it says 4000 workers are going to work in the complex. Any idea where they got that number?

Gotta give the state of Ohio credit for this one. They helped prevent this from going to Florida and it also seems like as a result of the investment corridor several companies are landing here.

Why do that when they can make lots of money on a very exciting asphalt lot.

I will say the ball moves much better without Mitchell and levert on the floor.

Are they doing anything to make it right even if it is a small gesture.

Some prospective. Game 2: No Allen, Garland Game 3: No Allen, Garland, Mitchell Let's wait until we have our main players available before we do any evaluation.

I've been burnt way too many times to believe those estimates anymore.

I appreciate are the thoughtful responses to my posts. This topic really is so much easier to discuss in person than an internet forum and only so much conversation can really be had here, so I am going to bow out of the conversation.

I tried to rephrase it in a way that people who disagree with the fetus would still be willing to dialogue. I hold that a fetus is a human life. Now I know that people will reject that premise as you did. So what I am trying to dialogue on is at what point then is a fetus a human life? And can we at least agree that an abortion past a certain point should not happen. We would never think of killing a baby born alive at 22 weeks because it is a human life and we are convinced of that but if the baby wasn't born yet then it isn't? That just doesn't seem right. And people like to argue that viability is a good line to draw. Why does our current scientific advancements dictate whether something is a life or not. Appreciate the dialogue.

I do agree that there is a disconnect with many pro-life people. If they wanted to cut down on abortion they would be more pro things like paid maternity leave and childcare which would cut down on a major reason why people get an abortion.

That is actually not true. Many abortion proponents such as Mary Williams argue that the unborn is a human life just not one that is equal. Here is an excerpt of her article (obviously it is an older article but this sentiment remains). Here's the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That's a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She's the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always. When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory. I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of "scraping out a bunch of cells" and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of "the baby" and "this kid." I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can't we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it's pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn't the same? Fetuses aren't selective like that. They don't qualify as human life only if they're intended to be born. https://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/ But for the sake of argument let's reframe my question. What makes something a human life and therefore worthy of protecting?

Not really an equivalent scenario. To make it more accurate the scenario would be, should I be allowed to kill a person so I can keep both my kidneys? In that situation we would answer a resounding no. In fact, we would argue that the government should intervene and stop us. I just want to hear someone give me an definition of what makes something a life worthy of protecting? Again, I am not talking about whether a mother's life is on the line or health is greatly impacted. I gave my rationale early on how I think that viability is a weird line to draw because it is based on current scientific progress. To say it is based on whether or not a baby has been born is an odd argument to make because a 39 week unborn would not be worthy of being protected but a baby born at 23 weeks would be. The 39 week old would be further developed in every sense (cognitively, physically, etc). Basically the determiner of whether something is worthy of being protected is based solely on location. Women's health is one of the lowest reasons why someone ends up getting an abortion. The top being financial. I am totally sympathetic to health reasons, but should financial or not the right time reasons really be grounds to end a life. Now if you say it is not a life worthy of being protected again what makes a life worthy of being protected? https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29 I feel like both sides like to make like it is so black and white when it is way more complicated than that.

I agree that the law as it is can be twisted to prevent women from getting important life saving treatment and that is a shame. But please help me understand this. Why is viability where we draw the line? We are basically saying that the determiner of whether an unborn life should be protected (with rightful exceptions like a mother's life is on the line) is based on our current scientific advancements. If our scientific advancements increase so that we can keep an unborn alive at 19 weeks does that mean that all of a sudden 19 week unborn enters into this category of being worthy of being protected. I just don't get how this makes sense from an ontological standpoint.

The food hall is really cool. Hope it survives. I lived in Zanesville for 2 years, including downtown for 1 and always found the downtown area to be pretty dead and that was precovid.

Also they’d probably be able to get some partners to take up some space as well.

This is my favorite angle to date of SHW. It gives a big city feel with the four large towers in a row plus the fed building.

Not so sure. I feel like someone with the ego and grandeur of Goncalves will want his own building eventually.

Probably is players would transfer as soon as their school was relegated especially if they were going into their senior year.