4merper4mer
-
Posts
21,495 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by 4merper4mer
-
-
You really don't see this as a blunder? Those coaches are paid handsomely to put a solid roster together. It's up to the FO to make sure that they have the pieces they need. If the coaches, prior to Thursday's game thought the Manuel would not get hurt all season then they were shortsighted. If the coaches, prior to Thursday's game thought that Tuel was a decent option if Manuel ever got hurt then they failed in their jobs as coaches. If the coaches told the FO that a capable backup was needed because Tuel was not ready (and may never be ready) to step on the field and the FO did nothing then they failed. There is no reason to lose that game...other than the blunder(s) that fits this scenario. Since we're not privy to the internal workings of the team we don't know which blunder(s) were in play here, but we do know that in the end it was a mistake.
Or perhaps the coaches and the FO both knew what needed to be done and were told no by Littman. Again.
-
Raising the country's debt ceiling? What is their to compromise about?
Here is what I don't get:
It seems like there are always arguments about raising the debt ceiling. It could be a Republican president and a Democratic congress or a Democratic president and a Republican congress. It doesn't seem to matter, there is always an argument. Anyway, it is like a wife that wants to increase the credit line on the card to get the kitchen re-modeled and the husband screams about it. The next year, the husband wants to do the same thing to get a new boat and the wife gets mad. It just leads to stress and there is diminished activity in the bedroom.
Here is what I don't get: Why is there a debt ceiling at all? We just keep raising it and raising it. Why not make it unlimited? That way there would be no more arguments.
-
keepthefaith and LeviF91 will kick this off. The topic is: Should the Washington Redskins change their name?
The thread is up.
-
keepthefaith and LeviF91: Please refer back to the original thread for rules. One tip is to be as insulting as possible. Making up topical or personal facts to bolster your argument is neither encouraged no frowned upon and there will be little to no fact checking by the judge. Me.
Everyone else: Feel free to comment on this battle but please put your comments in the original thread, not this one.
Topic: Should the Washington Redskins change their name?
Pick a side. If you pick opposite sides, start arguing. If you both want the same side there will be one more post in here by the judge. Me. It will pick the sides for you. After that, I will be back only to declare a winner.
-
I'm not that certain, but I think you can't cut an injured player.
Anybody know for certain?
Can you cut a player with a possibly fake injury like Byrd?
-
The field has been completed. We'll start Monday. All 16 must be prepared.
I will announce the topic either Sunday night or Monday along with the first two participants. If they agree on sides they want, fine. If not sides will be assigned by the judge. Me.
-
You win. The intentional misspelling of Rush Limbaugh's name is a proven crowd pleaser at liberal gatherings, and always has em rolling in the aisle.
Now that you're in there is only one more to go.
-
Call me a fat white trassewage beater if you want. Your words mean nothing to me.
Oh and can we add panty waste to the TBDisms thread?
I always thought it was panty waist. You know like love handles.
-
there's no provision currently to remove a private pay option. i don't see why what you describe would necessarily be legislated out. but there are very few people that could afford what you describe. and perhaps, before they are entitled to do that, the difference between what they paid into medicare vs what was paid out shpould be calculated and settled. on avg there's a lot more paid out than collected so the odds are that the described pt will be owing.
So if I pay more than I get back can I expect a check in the mail?
-
"these guys may threaten to take their mother hostage but they will never hurt their mother"http://finance.yahoo...-120307802.html we can only hoe this is true.
don't believe the chorus here. there's no consensus here or anywhere on the points you make. eventually, i believe it will save money but if and only if, we can stop the death panel bs talk.. and what you're proposing (limiting end of life heroic care) will take real political bravery, something in very short supply in dc right now. initially, it's more likely to allow an accurate accounting of real costs as cost shifting is slowly eliminated.
If someone has a lot of money, like say me, why is it "politically brave" for some loser in congress who probably got beat up in the 7th grade hall to determine I can't live? I might want to pay a doc so I can live. The "true accounting of costs" would be offset by me writing a check for a couple hundred million or whatever. I earned the money so I should get care early middle or late stage because I can afford to pay. If the government won't let me pay to try to live isn't that denying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? To me it also breaks "Thou shalt not kill" which is the 5th amendment, but that is debatable.
By the way I bet if Henry Waxman walked down any 7th grade hallway in the US today, he would STILL get beat up.
-
Wild Card entries despite not volunteering:
OC in Buffalo
Take You to Tasker
DC Tom
More may be added later. I would like to see:
Kelly the Fair Dog or something like that
Gene Frenkle
but they are not around much. I would also like other volunteers of all stripes to please sign up. We can get going Monday.
Topics and round 1 match ups are already under development by the judge. Me.
-
No, you will lose because your "argument" will be...."Please explain this function of the __________ in enormous detail."
I propose the Chef Rule. Asking someone annoying questions because they have nothing to say is not allowed.
Proposal summarily rejected by the judge. Me.
-
I'll lose because my argument will be:
If EII or OC is your opponent then your argument is a winner because it makes more sense than theirs
-
Should be interesting to see a lot of the guys here argue the opposite of what they believe.
Congrats.
-
I feel guilty. I'll be a titan among little Conservative dwarfs...
Dwarves. You're in and so is keepthefaith
-
or after a win
Don't take that for granted but I think you have a shot of getting to round 2.
-
But not everything was bad. Tgreg got a great idea for a script from it:
Looks like a hit to me.
-
Oh ****.
Welcome aboard. If these were live debates I'd have you bring the food.
I'm in.
You'll be in when the judge says you're in. Me.
You're in.
This sounds complex. Too complex. What's the point, too? Just insult each other and make PPP look even worse?
You're in but if you're not going to insult anybody I'm smelling a first round departure.
:lol:I didn't expect you but feel free to use movie scripts to back up your arguments.
Wait...that makes us look worse? How could that be? Have you read the main wall after a loss lately?
You're the morning line favorite until DC Tom gets here. Or maybe Mr. Limbaw.
-
Has anyone in the Buffalo media tried to pin Byrd down on this injury issue ? --- They could ask the direct question, "are you making more out of this injury to get back at the Bills for the franchise tag ?" --- unlikely --- or go the indirect route --- "Last year, he had a similar injury and played with it by taking shots, why not do the same this year ?" . . . . "You say, you won't play until you are 100%, have you played at less than a 100% in the past ?" --- "Would you play at less than a 100% in the future, for instance, if another teams signs you to a 5-year $45M contract ?" ---
I don't think any reporter has the guts to ask this on the record. I think it would be equally fair to ask the Bills if they tried to low ball Byrd and where their offer fell within the spectrum of safeties. Top safety? Top 5? Top 10? No offer? Of course neither the Bills nor Byrd would answer. They should not be expected to answer.
Parker can't "lose" this. Byrd will end up walking or being traded based on the best interest of Parker. If it also the best interest of Byrd and/or the Bills then fine, but Parker can't afford to lose. It is all about him.
-
You are so wise!
And Leaf and Russell have nothing to do with this situation, not sure why you are bringing it up.
I'm like the biggest Bills' homer, yet I can see both sides. And it's just hilarious how many message board doctors can say a guy is faking (or covered up an injury) when no one connected with the team has.
You said Byrd was a bargain so he deserves to be compensated for that. Does that mean Leaf or Poz should give money back?
I did not say Byrd was faking although it is clear he doesn't like to practice from his history. He is either:
Faking an injury because he doesn't like his contract status OR
Was asking for top dollar at his position even though he had an injury which would keep him from playing AND/OR
Is buying a bill a goods from his agent who has a history of running roughshod over the Bills and is trying to do it again.
-
Isn't your time better spent making whimsical comments in meaningless threads?
You're in.
-
Again, who is saying Byrd is faking? not one member of the Bills. And you can argue that Bills got a terrific bargain by what they paid Byrd when he was drafted. He far out performed that contract. And the second Byrd gets hurt, the Bills can cut him and not pay him a penny more!
Why is Byrd the bad guy and the team is fine? Again, I see both sides but being a Bills' fan is clouding folks judgment.
There is a document called the collective bargaining agreement. Familiarize yourself with it and then come back to this thread. You may make more sense.
Byrd's first contract is over. He indeed was a bargain for the Bills IMO. That is meaningless. The Bills and every other team also paid guys who never panned out. Think about Jamarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, Tony, Mandarich, Poz, and others.
There are not many non-Parker clients who sit out a whole year after signing a franchise tag or fail to disclose an injury while asking to be paid the top money for their position.
-
Again, not one person on the Bills has claimed he is faking. How in the world can you make that claim?
And what rules is he ignoring? Is the team calling him out? Or is it just frustrated fans? And if he gets paid like a top S, I guess his ego was justified.
There is a giant difference between getting a long term deal (with big time guaranteed money) than a one year deal. Say it's a game all you want, but it's a business. No one cares when a player blows out his knee, gets cut, and doesn't get another deal.
I made no such claim. How can you claim I made that claim? Read it again.
-
And it's a pretty serious thing to call someone a liar. It's hilarious that message board posters can call him a liar when not one team source has questioned him.
I agree that is is bad to call someone a liar.
In Byrd's case he either wanted to be paid at the top of his profession knowing full well he could not play at all due to injury, or he is pouting and claiming injury because he does not like a 100% by the book contract.
Liar? Maybe not, but I can't see how someone could call him honest or say he is doing the right thing.
Let The House Vote Mr. Speaker!
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Your link says we raised the limit 90 times last century. That is basically once a year like the husband and wife. That is 90 arguments that could have been avoided. The debt ceiling itself was a modification to the prvious system. Let's just modify the ceiling to infinity and be done with the arguing.