Buddy Hix

Hope you’re right, but he hasn’t been effective his last two years and is 30 years old. Would think a younger back in the later rounds could get 3.4 a carry. I wouldn’t say it’s hate, just questions about the need to sign a past his prime back who has been bad for 2 years.

Tolbert had a better YPC last year than Ivory, I care more about performance than appearance.

Seems like Tolbert 2.0, not impressed but hope he proves me wrong.

Ryan and Pence are the most egregious and prominent. Both railed against spending in favour of fiscal conservatism when they arrived on the scene, and now back a tax cut for the rich that will add trillions to the deficit. Although Ryan finally found his voice today and spoke out about the planned unilateral tariffs. And the contorting doesn’t stop with economic beliefs. How about every Christian and Evangelical who spouts support for a man who was caught on video bragging about sexually assaulting women in the exact same manner he was accused of 10 years earlier?

Lonely and desperate...how much time do you spend on here? As far as stupid, one of us defends Trump.

That’s what all the contorting conservatives are hoping...you know, the ones who have abandoned all conservative principles to support Trump. I suppose we’ll have an answer this coming week. But based on the press blitz Trump’s moronic underlings are undertaking, it would appear the Trumpian conservatives will have to find a new (contorted) position to take.

I can’t imagine the difficulty in negotiating with somebody like Trump. But add to that the incompetence of our federal Liberal government and I doubt it goes well.

Trump is completely unstable in every facet. With respect to the trade war he is trying to initiate, he does so based on his faulty facts. For a year now he has been bitching about the trade deficit with Canada, which isn’t accurate. Then this week he signs a report produced by the WH that states the US has a trade surplus with Canada. So wouldn’t you suppose addressing unfair trade with another country is the best solution? Not unilateral tariffs that hurt countries with whom you are allies and you have a trade surplus?

Trade wars are good for economies, right?

China will love the tariffs... Conservative economists, not so much.

You can call you ideas ( although I suspect you copied them from another source) fact but that doesn't make them so. The notion that implementing reasonable controls will lead to the push fur an all out ban may have merit, but it is pure speculation, not fact. And when one considers the pushback to implement simple controls that are reasonable, how can you not foresee the chaos that would ensue if a full ban were considered? I would say the discussion pertains to firearms, and they have taken plenty.

And that changes the fact that there are many options for home protection?

Back to old faithful...the trump card of the NRA, the slippery slope argument. I'll counter with the notion that if we are talking hypotheticals then refusing to compromise on certain controls could lead to a full ban, whereas compromising could lead to improvements and acceptable controls.

No Rambo, many firearms would suffice for home protection.

LMFAO...god forbid the Rambo wannabe use another firearm to protect his home.

It would seem to reason that if arming teachers had the intended outcome of deterring shootings at schools that the perps would just then pick a mall, park, etc. where there isn't an armed deterrent. How it isn't obvious that this solution is ridiculous and simply a bandaid is beyond reason. Using the the same flawed logic that arming teachers is the answer only serves to bring about the arming of every citizen, which is exactly what the NRA wants.

We do have a necessity for guns, I certainly don't bow hunt as often as I hunt with a rifle or shotgun. But we limit who can have access to that option. It's a chicken and egg issue as far as crime goes, if there was a program introduced to lessen the number of guns on the streets the need to feel protected by having one would decrease. Restricting access and implementing a buy back program would do a lot imo.

I believe the correlation between number of guns and gun violence is well documented. If you'd spent as much time searching Google for that relationship as you did typing that question you'd have your evidence.

As a Canadian who is a card carry Conservative and gun owner I feel the pro gun crowd in this thread are absolute lunatics and are the main reason your country will never move past this problem. The reason your country has so many shootings is because your country has so many guns. Period. End of story. Having more hoops to jump through in order to be a gun owner and restrictions on what type of gun one can own as well as restrictions on how and where you can take your gun reduces the amount of guns purchased, which in turn reduces gun violence. Arming teachers (lmfao), needing guns to keep you safe (lol) and every other moronic statement like that is not addressing the root cause of the problem...which is too many guns. Instead of the 2nd amendment/pro gunners racking their brains for scenarios and reasons to keep adding more guns, why don't you try and figure out a way to reduce the number?

I thought and still think the move was aggressive. I can't tell from your incoherent post if you agree. Good point about the team showing growth before the coach can.

I, and I'm sure a few others, made this point last night. One of the biggest areas I would like to see growth from McD is in terms of being aggressive. That feels weird to say about a coach who benched his starter in the middle of a playoff run for a rookie QB but it rings true to me. McD, and maybe Dennison contributed, ran a very conservative offense. Punting in OT was the most egregious example but there were many more. Sure, personnel plays a role in that, but Foles isn't Brady...and neither is Burton for that matter.

Hahaha NE got screwed again, love it

McD punts there 99% of the time

BB just said he wasn't good enough

If I'm NE I put Butler in