WhitewalkerInPhilly

I am very optimistic on the defense. There were a few games they really got gouged, but I am rewatching highlights and I am amazed at the number of critical stops I watched. And now with reinforcement in the front 7, I think we finally see a return of a top 10 defense.

5-11 or 6-10. McCoy and the defense spoon feeds enough that even Peterman can't screw up that much. Yeah, I have consistently seen more than one prediction of 4 wins or less for the last decade. They have never got that bad, but the writers never get called out on it.

Yeah, that's where I was going to go with this. I think they will be worse, but 3-13 bad is laughable, especially when they play the Jets and Dolphins twice a year.

No, that sounds right to me. I expect the defense to be better after with Star and Phillips bolstering the center, and Edmunds and Milano at LB. I expect to see a lot of nickel, or 3 safeties. For the offense, assuming that they are overall worse, but Dawkins and Teller get seasoned. I agree that I think that by the end of the season we are going to be salivating over a few free agent prospects and dreaming of 2019.

Look, joking aside people, who here thinks that we will be better than 9-7 this year? I would be ecstatic if they are. I don't want us trolling for a better pick. But I don't see us having a better record this year.

Well, that's all well and good that they are setting their standard high but let's be honest: we are probably taking a step back this year. We have a QB competition between a career backup, a scrub who set records for interceptions, and a rookie who very likely needs time to adjust. Throw in a completely reworked O-line and not a ton of talent in receiving options, the team will likely have a worse offense than last year. And I have made peace with that. 2019 is when the dead cap comes back, and Allen hopefully is seasoned.

Do they have confirmation of that? I wasn't sure. But if he asked a friend to enter, and knew that he might get rough, I can see a crime and the league might just push through and give a suspension anyway.

yeah...unless it quickly becomes obvious that Shady had zero part in this (in a different state, no connection at all to whoever did this) I easily see 6 games. If he is culpable, he's gone.

Oh, you mean those things you douse with gasoline and throw onto the body you have ground up and in the freezer. ...or so I've heard ?

That would be much appreciated if you have the time!

Yeah, it's been...less than fun. On another note, there's also a sous vide version where you finish it on charcoal. I might give that a look this summer... It was my first time ? I did soak them, but I was also trying to do it with a hurry, and my stuffer is a screw mounted attachment on my kitchenaid. Next time, I just need to be patient.

It was a lot of work. I had a hard time getting the casing on the spout and it kept sliding off, and then it burst. And I thought it would be quick, but it was taking forever. Then I knocked over the bowl of pork intestines, and it got everywhere. It took forever to clean up.

Yeah. The question is if I'll have time to run to the store before I'm eating at 9 at might cuz I went low and slow enough lol I also have some sausages I tried making I could smoke... (and I note, the casings were hard to work with. Insert a plethora of jokes here)

ohhh yeah. And my car AC is broken and I work in KoP It's been some rough commutes.

Hmm. I don't have a smoker, so I might need to improvise one. The wife is out this weekend, and I have to do yardwork on a scorching day lol. Maybe making an improvised smoker is my consolation prize

I actually saw a different one that really interested me on a site called Serious Eats. The recipe said that chuck is cheaper than brisket (which I knew) and more foolproof to smoke. I might add more of a dry rub than what I saw, but your method worked out well?

There are two (somewhat related) topics here: organic foods and Whole Foods Working in the food industry, and going through a lot of academic research, I can say that there is no study I could find that could conclude that organic food is more nutritious, safer, or tastes better than conventional foodstuffs when you go through double blind tests (neither the tester, or testee knows which is which during the test). That said, there is botanical work that suggests that organics in the store taste better because they aren't being grown for volume, as nutrients and flavor compounds are more densely compacted. Most megacorp-argiculture prioritizes size and speed of growth, so it can taste watered down. But it's not the "organic" quality that likely does it: it's freshness, and being picked at a smaller size that seems to give more flavor. If you can, roadside stands and farmers markets are the best way to go. As far as I can tell, it doesn't do anything for any other type of foodstuff. As for Whole Foods, I think they are a bit overpriced compared to Wegmans without a resulting increase in quality. They also range a lot depending on the store. The one that used to be by me had a great fish section and a better bakery, but was subpar to Wegmans in a bunch of areas. I'm not a fan, but I hear there are better ones in ritzier areas.

A VPN can make it possible for you to use a legal service, for which you pay for, as if you were using it out of a specific location. You are still paying, you are still watching commercials and you are still generating revenue for the league. I just really wish they would stop this ridiculous "stream but only within an arbitrary distance" nonsense.

Ok, to make sure I understand this: They allow streaming, but only if you are in market? Is it possible to access via computer? Can you VPN to access it? I really would like to watch games legally, but I am pretty sure I can't do DirecTV in my area and this sounds more than affordable.

You know who I think assumes I'm stupid? I think it's the people who want to look at our economy, an economy where our GDP grew every year since 2009, with trade all along the world and say "You know who is stealing your job? Mexicans. Mexicans are why the owner of your company shut it down and relocated it to Mexico. Clearly, not the owner of the company. You should have given him more tax breaks because he was only making 8 million instead of 12 every year." If you want to say that you don't want open borders, I agree. There should be limits, and realistic reform. A complete open border makes no sense. But saying that we are advocating for human trafficking, drug smuggling and vote mongering is retarded. The Wall doesn't stop drug smuggling. Smuggling pathways are far more intricate, and our ports are a far easier way to enter than that disgrace of an idea. Human trafficking will still happen, because they will look for other routes, and internal policing should be far more effective. You want to say that we need to rework the immigration process, increase border security while making citizenship or legal residence more in line with the reality of the situation? I wholeheartedly agree. But this is not that. It's dog whistling. It's making his base feel nice and big about themselves, about how it's not their fault for being in a bad place, and how things will be so much better once Miguel is dragged from his home. They were sure pretty effing united in ripping apart Obama era policies, and giving themselves nice big tax cuts. But again...I don't see any other conclusion from you're saying that doesn't lead me to other than "Republicans are a dysfunctional mess who don't have the capacity to govern"

Ok, I am splitting this, because this is very, very special. What you're telling me, is that after years, years of steadfastedly deciding what they wanted to fight against (Obama era policies), simply being united in their disapproval, they finally sweep into power. They dismantle the Paris Climate Change treaty, pull out of a deal that kept Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons that was working, gutted a flawed healthcare system, and decided to kill the status quo of DACA recipients...all without a plan of what to actually do. And so it's the responsibility of the people they consistently undermined...to help them to do what they want? This is like living with a roommate who decides to run around the house drunk, pissing, sh*tting and vomiting everywhere, and being told you're an !@#$ for not cleaning up the mess. You might actually do it, because you don't want to live in a house that smells like a dumpster, but how the hell do you leave the drunk !@#$ in charge of anything?

You mean that I left out the intricacies of reconciliation measures? OK maybe. But let's not pretend that the Republican party isn't in the driver's seat. They have near complete numerical control. If they could be in lockstep throughout their party, getting a bill through the House would be a breeze. They also hold leverage that would kill their opponents in midterms, if they could get their act together, but they can't get their act together. If they had a President who knew a dam thing about leading, or how to broker deals in legislature, they are coming from an incredible place of power. In the meanwhile, the things that have caused all these issues, have been issued from the EXECTUTIVE branch. Attempting to set an arbitrary deadline on DACA. Exectutive. Rejecting a Senate compromise that would have fixed the problem. Trump. The policy of family separation being an Obama or Clinton policy? Lies(http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/19/matt-schlapp/no-donald-trumps-separation-immigrant-families-was/) (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jun/21/donald-trump/trump-changes-course-stops-family-separation-borde/) That family separation could only be reversed by Congress...whoops! In every step of the way as the issue has been pushed, it has been Trump and his cronies muddying the process. Maybe you like that. But don't lie about it.

Odd, that's not what I said...I said that they control both houses of Congress and the Executive branch. They don't have a SUPER majority, but A) It means that they still have the onus on introducing legislation, which they haven't and B) nothing is stopping them from passing a bill in the House that forces their opposition to either agree, or allow them to shift blame for the whole thing onto their opponent. C) They so far have prevented introducing legislation that deals with individual problems rather than sweeping reform. The fact that they can't, or haven't done any, while the IMPOTUS complains about the opposition makes them seem like their heads are so far up their asses that they can see daylight only by complaining.

Ok. While the house can work with a simple majority, the Senate requires 60 votes normally to bring a bill to vote. This does not reflect passage of the bill, as McCain showed with his cloture with the "skinny repeal" back in 2017. Now, the Senate could A) find at least a partial workaround using a Reconciliation measure. This might offer a stop gap, if not true reform. or B) but together a compromise that would be political poison pills to swallow by simply stonewalling. Such as, say, path to citizenship, congressional laws preventing the splitting of families, increased funding for border agents as opposed to the Wall...well, just saying no provides a bludgeon to beat the minority party with in the midterms. Basically, if working together with their counterparts in the Senate (such as the compromise that was rejected, prompting the "shithole countries" incident), the Senate could propose a bill and put it in the House's court. Or, the House could work with members in the Senate to first obtain a compromise and then pass it. But, of course, this would require presidential approval, because it is doubtful enough of the disparate wings of Congress could get the two third majority. Bringing something to pass in the House that dies in the Senate WOULD show obstructionism by Democrats, and that could be a rallying cry. I'm sorry...are you surprised that I have at least a basic understanding of legislative processes? I *am* rubbing salt in your eyes, because killing the compromise bill in the House is the best thing the Dems could ask for. It paints the Republicans as a majority that cant get it's sh*t together, the President as a man-child, and it completely relieves them of responsibility because they don't even have to meet their opposition halfway because their opposition can't stagger there themselves. Really? Because he just tweeted that there was no point in it, and then turned to the midterms. And again, his party introduces legislation in both houses.

I know how they work. There absolutely could be ways, or concessions made to make it work. But our IMPOTUS prefers to stamp his feet and talk about how the bad brown people are here to rape you, and it's all those other people's fault because aren't giving him everything he wants riiiiggght noooowwwww.