whatdrought

I spent a goodish amount of time coming up with an idea to create an independent state on Greenland that would be a place for people who actually believe in American values and politics and want to get away from what our country is becoming. It was all quite elaborate and grand (including a future annexation of Iceland and parts of Canada) until my buddy informed me that Greenland was essentially a barren wasteland... Kinda a low spot for me.

I hated it at first, but it grew on me. It’s no Office, but I don’t think it was really supposed to be.

You just spewed so much chicken ***** I’m certain you don’t need any help getting feathers all over you.

Is this the guy in Space Force?

Olga shipped herself back to Russia. I actually have had a few reasonable conversations with Q-baby. Not about politics, but little side trails that weren’t insufferable. I don’t get that vibe from our most recent contemporary. Concur. They tried to implement some form of restrictions but they were pretty shallow. On both sides of the board there could be a little more for that and it would improve things.

I see what you're saying regarding Burrow and Young, but the problem still persists. If you have no QB, you have nothing. I agree with all of this, though I do think that reality still demands a run on at least 30 QB's because at each pick there's one that's better than the other and even slim margins of preference are going to have a sway with the most important position in Sports. Definitely the argument against taking anything but a QB in the first 20 or so picks is obvious as can be. I guess that dips into the rules that exceed the hypothetical. One could argue that if there's a regular draft next year, you're better off passing on the 29th best QB right now or whoever in order to get blue chip talent and hope to fail hard enough to get an A+ qb next year. I always imagine this hypothetical as a one year to win deal, in which case any margin of improvement at QB is worth sacrificing at the lesser positions.

I get the point, but from day one if you don't have a QB who can play football, you're screwed. Even if he's the 32nd best QB in the league, he's better than the risk of the 50th best in the next round. I guess the later picks have some flexibility assuming nobody is going to double up and they'll have a relatively similar QB board come their next pick, but the idea that anything but QB goes top 15 or 20 is just crazy. I agree, lot of dumb picks in this.

Why do you get in your car each morning? Do you know how many people die in car accidents each year? Of course the deaths matter, but as with everything, we as a society take reasonable precautions- not drastic measures with little positive effect.

Say you pick with the 20th pick. Would you rather have: Josh Allen and Danielle Hunter or Nick Bosa and Nick Foles. Building a team always begins with the QB. If you don't have one, you forsake all other positions in an attempt to get one. Every single time. If i have no players on my roster, I'm taking the very best QB available to me with my first pick. No it isn't. We see this every year. Chase Young was a better prospect than Joe Burrow. When you don't have a QB, your first job is to fix that problem.

But that’s the problem. No team would pick anyone other than a QB until they have picked a QB. I don’t care how good the other player is. If you don’t have a QB, you don’t have anything.

It's a fun excercise but it's worthless to do it with QB's in the mix. There are at most 32 professional starting QB's in the NFL (probably closer to 25 really). Those 32 would go 1-32. Suppose we're willing to ignore that, then some major issues: Brees at #8 ahead of the likes of Carson Wentz? Obviously better, but if this is day one, what team is going for the one year rental? Also, No surprise on Allen going mid-second. The media can't help themselves. He would really be in the top 15 in real life, undoubtedly.

Beat me too it.

No, I understand how that went down. My perspective was "standing for the anthem is universally seen as showing respect, ergo anything else is the antithesis." But that article shows how they were showing respect in a reserved way or in a different way. I still disagree with much of the details, but I can understand where they're coming from.

You know what, I hadn't seen that perspective on why kneeling. I appreciate you sharing it and I stand corrected on my rant.

No it's really not. It's an analogy of why you can't ignore actions because of stated intentions. I don't care about this actions in the scope of this conversation. This is a mischaracterization of what I've said. I did not say that was his intent or reason for kneeling. I am saying that he could not (due to his views and convictions) show respect for the flag. He did not respect the flag in that moment.

Oof. Public schooling is a B word!

We stand for the anthem, as a society, to show respect to the flag. Why didn't he stand?

I guarantee this idiot has no less than 2 armed security officers around her at all time and doesn't shop for her own groceries.

I think they are passively disrespecting it, or choosing not to partake in the ceremony. I don't think there's some unwritten law saying they have to be a part of the anthem or do xy and z to demonstrate their respect. I don't really care what they do. The difference between the two is that Kaepernick actively chose to do the opposite of what is tradition to show respect to the flag. Again, I'm fine with that choice and his personal convictions that led him to it (even If I disagree), but why is it offensive to call it what it is? The socially accepted way of paying respect in that moment is to stand with hand above heart. By doing the very singular opposite, isn't that quite clearly a sign of disrespect? Again, I'm not arguing he should be put in jail or that he's desecrating Arlington. You say you understand my beliefs but I'm not sure you do. I never cared that he knelt. I find most everything about him and a lot of his opinions wrong and abhorrent, but I respect his freedom to kneel in protest and disrespect the flag if he can't in good conscience stand in respect of it. (although once the employer is involved it's another conversation) My question, if Kaep does indeed respect the flag, why was he unable to stand during the anthem which is done as an expression of respect?

I hadn't considered basic understanding of cause and effect to be so difficult, no. I just punched my neighbor in the face cause he didn't return my weedeater. I would never commit assault, i was just demonstrating my feelings with regards to the weedeater situation. It just happens that my actions, what I did to demonstrate, were shockingly similar to assault. But that's completely irrelevant because I would never commit assault and I was just demonstrating. My point being this: Kneeling during the anthem was inherently disrespectful. He meant it that way. He was declaring that he could not, in good faith, stand in respect of the flag and the anthem. So he knelt to show his disapproval and disrespect. It doesn't matter what he says afterwards, and I don't believe he was "trampling on the graves of soldiers" as some would say, but to come back and say that Brees is off base for calling it disrespectful, when that's the very thing it was meant to be, is idiotic. ?

All due respect, but you're missing my point:

I mean, okay. But his act of kneeling was a statement that he refused to stand for the flag.... Which is to say he refuses to stand in respect of it. Outside of his agenda and the points he was trying to make, his was still an act of rebellious disrespect. Again, from a purely semantics point of view, how can this be debated?

You're saying he's protesting the music itself? Yikes. This whole situation has been misrepresented. As for your "only the anthem argument" I appreciate you trying that, but there's really no way to separate the anthem from the flag: Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight, O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming? And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Yes. Because his actions prove his intent? This isn't me saying Kapernick is un-American or horrible or anything else. In fact, in a vacuum outside of him and my opinions on this, we can still logically deduce what is happening. The National Anthem plays as a tribute to the flag of the United States of America. Attendees are asked to stand and remove their hats and place their hands on their heart while facing the flag to honor our flag and our Country. (honor = respect). From this moment there's three actions possible: 1- stand and show respect/honor to the anthem and the flag. 2- sit and don't move which is, I suppose, neutral at best, but likely more negative. 3- Do some other thing to demonstrate a rebellion to the act of showing honor and respect, such as kneeling. Thus showing, and declaring outright, that you neither respect nor honor the flag. How is this so hard to understand?