BullBuchanan

Still hoping for an original thought. Don't live down to my expectations.

He's being paid a contract as a 10 sack per year guy as he's not. Worse yet, he's not healthy and the Bills either knew that and paid him anyway, or they didn't and they're incompetent. You pick. And at what point did he look "fine" last year? If you pay for a car over 3 years but you don't get to have it until the second year do you still consider it paying $300 a month? He ate up our cap and wasted a roster spot for a whole season. Because You don't predict future results off of statistical outliers. If you take away his one big contract year you get an average of 3.33 sacks per year. If you don't want to do that because it was a real season he played in where he got 9 sacks, you end up with Albert Haynesworth. The kid just isn't starting material.

I will absolutely do that. There's an approaching zero percent chance that happens. He's a 28 year old one year wonder. So far the bills have paid him over $500k per tackle. Killer ROI.

Well we paid him 7.5 million to not play last year. It might even be worse by the time he misses half of this season. Want me to break it down per snap?

Cheap? In what world is $7.5 million dollars for a guy that couldn't play, who averages 4.5 sacks a year, cheap? They got baited hard and everyone else is laughing at them.

Well, at this point they're paying him $11 million dollars a year, so he damn well better be less useless than he has been. This is easily the worst signing of their tenure. This guy should have been on a one year-vet minimum prove-it deal, but leave it to Beane to pay the max. If he was on a one-year deal last season he'd be unsigned right now.

Brown and Beasley? I expect them to spend considerable time in the injury tent.

The Bills already took my hopes and dreams, why not gold plate it with giving away all of my money and possessions too.

I just don't know how far I have to reduce it. Look: you clearly have a lot of information, but I'm concerned you aren't really processing that information. You've got some weird hangup and fascination with "globalism". If I had to bet, I'd put money down that you'd have a nice long take on George Soros and the Trilateral Commission too. The EU acts as a federation that protects the interests of a strong Europe as a whole. It doesn't have an army, or a government. It just manages things that become untenable when you have so many countries in such a small geographic location like civil liberties, corporate operation regulations, sanctions, work visas, border policy within the EU, and helps with trade agreements. Most of the people that don't like it in the EU tend to be pretty similar to American republicans and fit the same socio-economic profiles, and so that makes sense to me. It's helped stabilize regional economies and ensures that people can work where the opportunity is while still calling their country home. It would be really hard for Luxembourg to reign in Facebook and Google, but when they have the backing of the EU behind them they can bring them to task. That's a net good. A universal currency is highly convenient. The positive impact they've had on maintaining the Good Friday agreements is massive (Which Brexit under the current non-plan puts at risk). It's not "globalist" in some sense that some mysterious and spooky New World order secret government is waving a shadowed hand over its puppet states across the globe. It's shared cost and shared benefit for shared objectives, goals, and principles. If you want to define it as multi-national corporations ruling the world and racing employment to the bottom, that's a completely separate and unrelated discussion. I'm generally not a fan of corporations as they exist today at any level. If you want to define it as globally open borders, i would say that I'm in favor of knowing who's coming and going on a visit, or the immigration process needs to be anywhere near the laborious process it is today. In the US, green-card applications are backed up to 2008. That helps no-one, citizens, immigrants or otherwise. If you want to define it as a homogeneous set of values or political processes, well that's a whole thing. What do you want? Edit: I'm now wondering if by my references to liberty you think I'm referencing a Libertarian point of view. I'm not. Not at all. I pretty seriously disagree with most of that. However, I believe very strongly in social liberty. I'm not a big social justice advocate, because my general approach is "you do you" I think that as a country we have a duty to ensure that people within our population are not oppressed, but we don't have a duty to enforce that everyone likes everyone else or what they stand for. The more litigation/law side of it comes in with: freedom for and freedom of religion, no permits for you to put a garage on your own property, the destruction or the military industrial complex and the corporate prison system, etc. If you want to do something that only affects you, or the repercussion to someone else are exceedingly rare or a mild nuisance, I don't think there needs to be a law to stop it. Laws should be built around core-shared values and a lot less ticky-tack bs. like taxes?

I figured religion was like that for most people.

Here ya go. Seems you missed it the first time except you replied to it, so i can't help you much beyond that. I'm probably most closely aligned with being a socialist, but it's more nuanced than that.

#deepstate confirmed.

Generally speaking I agree with that, for now at least. The problem is that short-term job loss can effect people in this country in a pretty extreme fashion over a short period of time. Our general "yay for me, **** everybody else" approach tends to hit most people at least once or twice in their life whether it's medical, housing or employment related. Over my career in tech I've seen it go from a highly niche "nerds required" field to more of broad industry where maybe a bootcamp can get you by to be a low-tier programmer, sysadmin, devops etc. My only point there was just that jobs that are currently considered to be high skill are probably going to become more and more low-skilled over time, and we should all be preparing for the 10,20,30 year evolutions of those fields. When mobile programming was brand new it was a nightmare and required a ton of knowledge and competence. A short 10 or so years later, children can do it.

You should read the rest of the article. It's interesting. Especially when compared against data that's 25 years more recent.

We've reached the limits of your comprehension regarding this topic. You either can't or won't read correctly. You must have heard about globalism recently and were just waiting for a place to name drop it, because it has no bearing on this conversation. You sound like the kind of person that's shocked when they need a new roof. Plan for the future, guy. If you aren't taking preventative steps for the future you're behind.

The EU has found a largely successful solution that still needs work, but has kept their economies heavily viable in a way they otherwise would not be.

Jesus christ. Did you hit your head on something? I've defined it in every post I've made. I don't believe you "fight" for jobs by trying to prevent others from taking them. i believe you fight for them by equipping your team to take on new ones. You can try to 'make the wishbone" great again all you want, but history shows that evolution is always the best path. Now if you came out with a calm and rational plan that said something like, "hey it's 2019 and fossil fuels are dying. We still have a lot of people whose livelihoods depend on it though. We should provide some subsidies to make sure they continue to be employed and also use the bulk of that to train them on wind and solar farm operation" I would be all the way in. Instead what I get is a bunch "Dey took er jerhbs!" And that's useless. It helps no one.Those jobs are still going away and those people are just going to be more behind when they do.

I'm not in favor of trade deals like NAFTA, no. They were put in place to help corporations and hurt everyone else. Right now, mankind is the league. You're on the right of me, by about a billion percent. The right helps people who they want to help and they try to hurt everyone else. You keep tossing around the term globalist, but you don't seem to know what it means and keep trying to convince me I believe in things I dont. Just stop, it's tiresome. "World Order" lol. gtfoh

Not sure I'm following your fictional scenario. I believe in countries whole-heartedly in that the country we live in should act in the best interests of the people within it. I view countries as nothing more than the government equivalent of a team. As part of that team, everyone should share in the highs and the lows, and the manager is responsible for making sure we're on the correct trajectory. However, I believe that ultimately it should be far easier to go to a country that has ideals you support and play for that team. What I get from most on the right is that they don't really believe in the concept of countries, because they don't have any interest in supporting their teammates. I also don't view other teams as the enemy, because our ability to win doesn't depend on their ability to lose. As long as they let me have my liberty, they can have theirs. I have no interest in assassinating foreign leaders and installing fascist dictators in their place.

In the definition you're likely after, probably not, but I think it's completely ignorant to ignore the impact the the world economy has on the people within it and how we must adapt our way of life in order to compete and thrive. I've worked with people all over the world every day for the last 18 years, and probably will the rest of my life. They face the same challenges we have, do or will. You can try to stop immigration and outsourcing, just like they tried to save the steel mills in the 50's. The math just doesn't work and progress stops for no one. If you don't figure out a better way, someone else will, and I like fight for things that move toward that better way. The days of getting a job or a career at 18 and riding that to retirement are long done. I've had 7 jobs in the last 12 years, and that's the new normal. basic programming will be the new Ford assembly line worker, Coal Miner, or Steel Mill in 20 years. You can either bemoan it or you can figure out what's next. exactly.

Why wouldn't they?

There's no problem with Indians being in the country. Outsourcing is always going to happen, and it's going to become more prominent than ever. We can't stop it and we shouldn't try. instead we need to be investing in ourselves to be able to compete in that market.

is the opinion of the blog more relevant somehow?

Every major city in Texas voted blue in 2016 and 2018, and the population has been increasing. Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso are all shifting more an more. Why do people make such a big deal about this? Can someone lead and not win a thing? I mean I've heard of that happening at least once or twice.

Those jobs are going to India. While everyone's been worried about losing their jobs to fruit pickers, landscapers, and house cleaners, $150K jobs that buy homes, cars, restaurant trips and vacations are going bye-bye. Add in the fact that a lot of those now out of work programmers have 6 figures in student loan debt and the real problems should become a lot more clear.