Foxx

you know zombies are a thing today, right?

you're getting blizzards in warm climates? huh, who knew.

i agree, it is the end result that matters most. however, all data should get thrown into the hopper to be ground out for evaluation. being that at this point, knowing what the end result will ultimately be, is unknown at best. we can only make guesstimations based upon all currently available input.

i am on record as saying he will have 5 touchdowns.

well, it does have some merit. because Peterman was/(is?) historically bad, calling into question the ability to make other estimations is valid to a certain extent. the only way past that is to show that judgments made in other areas are indeed sound. time will surely tell the tale but for now, i don't think it is something that was dragged in out of left field.

right. tonight should help to develop the context of just where that beating stands.

further, it seems his overall take is based upon the decisions regarding Peterman, of which he is none to thrilled with.

and to be fair to you, Indy. he does seem to contradict himself in the very next paragraph where he states:

to be fair, i think you must take the entire context of that statement. if you do so, i believe he was alluding to the fact that they traded up three times to get Allen and Edmunds which cost them precious draft capital to do. i believe his point was that teams building for the future would have taken the BPA and saved those picks to fill other obvious holes. again just my take.

to give Sully more ammunition?

befoe opening the thread, i thought it was going to say that Coleman tanked it here so he could get signed by the Patriots.

i know i'll feel better about this Bills team if the Ravens come close to doing to the Bengals tonight what they did to us last Sunday. on the other hand, if Cincinnati lights Baltimore up, i won't have much hope for our home opener.

fixed it for you. @Applebees during happy hour.

i dunno.... if i were you, i might go around and check the bottom of things around the house. they may have already put their names on them so as to have the first claim in.

this would be a legitimate excuse. if they do not want said donations to be seen as possibly being as conflict of interest, that makes sense

what? that of stadium funding becoming an issue during the election? again it is a weak excuse and not one that will have any bearing on the outcome of the gubernatorial race.

for one thing, they stand to gain more by having it not recognized. once the struggle is done.... then what?

:cough:bull ****:cough: like Cuomo has a chance in hell of losing, right.

life is short. break the rules, forgive quickly, kiss slowly, love truly, laugh uncontrollably, and never regret anything that made you smile.

no worries. meat space always takes precedence. it just so happens that i have an extended period of downtime on the backend of a business trip. it's all good.

thank you for clearing that up. [/sarcasm]

Hurricane Florence Will Slow Down, Hammer Carolinas and Appalachia for Days with Catastrophic Flooding, Destructive Winds At a Glance Florence remains a dangerous Category 4 hurricane. Florence is expected to crawl near or along the coast of the Carolinas at least through Saturday. This will produce catastrophic flash flooding and major river flooding. Life-threatening storm surge will occur near landfall and for some time after. Hurricane and storm surge warnings have been issued. Tropical-storm-force winds may arrive as soon as Thursday. Florence's remnant may linger in parts of the East into early next week. Hurricane Florence will slow down, performing an agonizing crawl through the Carolinas and Southeast into early next week, producing catastrophic inland rainfall flooding, life-threatening storm surge and destructive winds. As of Wednesday morning, Florence was centered less than 500 miles southeast of Wilmington, North Carolina, moving northwestward.

if we stopped spending $756 for hammers and $621 for toilet seats, we could probably balance the budget in short order.

okay, i think your being a bit critical of my position and my reply but i'll see if i can be a bit more articulate but i don't know that my position requires my specificity. as i said earlier, i think the title is off as the article goes into more areas than just the criminal justice system and actually speaks more to the divide that the political spectrum has created. though i do believe one can make an effective argument towards the political divide created within the criminal justice system as well, i think the overall argument is grander. there is certainly the 'race' element contained within this issue, as well as the 'sexist' element with opinions falling on either side as to it being either or not. he points out that there are differing sides on whether or not the rule of law is being fairly applied. of this there can be no denying that rules are rarely applied with any regularlity, consistentency or fairness. perhaps the one area that i would have specific disagreement with, is that he asserts that the umpires decisions were far outside the norm. being that there really is no norm for the enforcement of the rules, how could anyone stress that the ump was acting outside of them. i apologize if you are looking for something more but that is basically my position.