WhitewalkerInPhilly

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.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/22/mark-sanford-trumps-midterm-tweet-is-game-over-for/ When you control both houses of Congress, and the Executive branch and can't pass anything... All hail IMPOTUS!

Very nice topic! I'm a glass half full guy, so I'm going to say under. I don't think that we are going to go super aggressive on offense, and I think that the addition of Star on the D-line and Edmunds to the LB core, as well as a very solid looking backfield should clean up some of the problems we saw last year in run defense and getting pressure on the QB.

Yeah. I remember a LOOOOT of 4-12 predictions over the last 4 years, and no one was eating crow about that.

IDK, I personally think that a sitting politician using the weight of his office to pressure private industry to alter their policies is troubling. Especially when he seems to have vindictive, petty personal reasons for doing so.

I'm a lib and I'm all for it. I honestly don't give a hot ****. I honestly don't care if they play the anthem or not. I am just amazed at the massive clutching of pearls over the whole thing.

That was last year, when Trump was in office. But people have been skipping since the Clinton era, this happens all the time. It's just 45 who had a temper tantrum over it.

Really? This is the first I heard of it. I heard nothing when a bunch of the Patriots chose not to go last year.

As much as I don't want to give credit to DC Tom here, more precisely, it was individual players, not the team. As Malcolm Jenkins put it (to paraphrase) "If I was invited to a party by someone who was known to say sexist and racist things, and I declined to go, I don't think people would make a big deal about that. I don't know how being president changes that." This was SUPPOSED to be a celebration of them, for them. They were under no obligation to go. So when the team management attempted to alter the schedule to salve Trump's ego, that was the OPPOSITE of trying to embarrass him. I listed to Schefter this morning, and his take was "the Eagles tried to hand him an out, and he shoved it back in their faces" The embarrassment is in how our President reacted: childish, whiny fury. If you actually read the responses the players put out (especially Malcolm Jenkins) they come across as thoughtful, well spoken and moral. Which is more than I can say for this administration.

I find it hilarious that for people complaining about "culture wars", the Eagles are one of the few teams to be doing everything that they *say* players are supposed to do: They all stood for the anthem. They prayed on the sideline. They did their activism off the field. They donated their time and money to causes. It's almost like...you just don't like what they are saying and are looking for flimsy excuses to discredit it. You mean like the gladhanding Trump has gotten over taking on a strong economy and then running up a load of debt that his huckster ass won't have to pay?

I am skipping the circlejerk in the beginning, but I think it bears recording the chain of events that led to this "disinvitation" Throughout the 2017 season, the Eagles were one of 7 teams to have no one kneel during the anthem. I know the alt-right posters here like conservative websites, so let's throw them a bone on the evidence: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/1/no-philadelphia-eagles-players-knelt-anthem-2017/ However, they had a number of players be very vocal to the cause on their own time. In fact, one player (Chris Long) donated a year's salary to charity. During the season, Trump goes on a rant about how bad the NFL is. He talks about how he should be able to fire players for not behaving exactly as he likes. He calls them "sons of bitches". So when the Eagles win the Superbowl, a number of players state that, if invited, they would not attend. It's not a mandatory event, and players have elected not to go since the Clinton administration. It is, after all, supposed to be congratulating them. The NFL rolls out an anthem policy that satisfies nobody, and it's revealed they were pressured by Trump to do something. After months of hemming and hawing, the invitation for the trip arrives...during OTAs. A number of players reiterate they have no interest in going to an optional event. It turns out, a single digit number of players were interested in going. So the Eagles decided to offer the chance for our sitting President to save some face by rescheduling. At this, the infant-in-chief blows up, and decided to cancel the event, saying they are "unable to come with their full team"...something that the Patriots didn't do last year. He claims that they are not attending because they disagree over his view the anthem policy...the policy for which they actually were doing what he wanted. He claims that they are letting down "1000 fans" and is going to make it up with his own ceremony honoring the military. Now, as an aside, I was there for the parade in Philadelphia. For an event that Eagles fans care about, a lowball number of 700,000 people was counted. So, the idea that a thousand of them attending something they want to go to...seems low. Like, not filling the tailgating section before the game low. And then, as local Philadelphia reporters attend, it turns out that there are few, if any, Eagles fans in attendance. From the pictures I saw, it looks like they gave staffers a lunch break and sent them out for a photo op. This entire thing is a big pouty exercise by a man child who can't stomach the thought of not being loved. It's like an 8 year old deciding to cancel his birthday party because most of the class decided not to attend. What a joke. You mean the part where the stock market rebounded and then hit record heights after the 2008 crash? Or the part where the Big 3 automotive manufactures were saved and rebounded? Oh wait, you didn't personally see an improvement? It's almost as if giving billionaires more money does nothing to help the vast majority of people.

I will confess that I was a skeptic. I wanted Rosen or Darnold. That said, this is not the first time I have heard the comparisons to Carson Wentz: still a little raw in his craft, but seems to be progressing and has the physical tools that are eye popping. I will wait for judgement until we actually see him on the field, but I have hope. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Uggh, this is rough Marrone: Actually left with a winning season. If he had been willing to change offense, and let Schwartz have the defense I wouldn't have been shocked if we resembled what the Jags are now. Gailey: Got what he could get out of a sub-par QB. I wonder what he could have done with Shady and Tyrod. Mularky: Meh Greggo: Meh Jauron: Lower Meh Rex: It's hard, because I was thrilled when he got here. I still enjoy his personality. But man, the defense backslid hard and he bears a lot for that. Tie in that he had one of the most talented rosters in years, and still couldn't do it, I think he is deserving of the bottom of the pile.