Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,828 Excellent

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Music City

Recent Profile Visitors

17,008 profile views
  1. This Willie Banks talk sent me down a rabbit hole that led me to this 2016 feature story on him: Hope he's doing OK in 2020.
  2. I think we're in agreement on this. I can only speak for the communities with which I'm familiar, but I have firsthand seen the overwhelming majority of faith-based organizations take really responsible steps to combat the virus and still serve their congregations as they're called to do. Watching some of these small churches go virtual has been pretty neat. Their weekly services, studies, etc. are showing up on social feeds all over the place. It's a great way to reach new people. It's also a great way to send a clear message on the responsibility we all have in social distancing. I just can't reconcile what some of the people in this thread are saying with what I'm seeing being applied in real life. Sure, there are outliers. And those people end up being the headline. But for someone like @CurlyNight to paint them as the poster child for religious organizations during a pandemic is woefully inaccurate.
  3. No, it doesn't. Please stop trying to create that narrative. It's not based in reality. It's based in headlines. I'd say 98% of faith-based entities do far more good for their communities than harm.
  4. I think I agree with you on this. And kudos for doing the right thing by your tenants on a case-by-case basis.
  5. So you take a couple of bad-acting pastors and extrapolate that to being the viewpoint of an entire region of the country?
  6. I'm sorry, but this is beyond offensive. Is that really how you view religious people? Pathetic.
  7. I'm not sure it's as problematic as it appears on the map. Most of the "hot zones" appear to largely be areas that require a drive to get any basic supplies.
  8. I'll clarify: If this was such a priority during negotiating the bill, they should have spent more time hammering out the details than trying to cram unrelated pork into it because they found it as a convenient way to leverage the plight of the American people to further their agenda (that had no chance of passing otherwise). Furthermore, any argument that they conceded this argument because they were in a rush to come to the aid of the American people is pretty much rendered moot by the above.
  9. Ah, so all the frivolous things they were trying to pack into the bill weren't slowing things down? Good to know.
  10. This is really the only portion of the reply necessary. Not everything is about Trump.
  11. My understanding is that there was already a bi-partisan oversight committee in place for the CARES Act. This is on top of that in an effort to politicize things.
  12. This brings us back to the harsh reality we're going to face until we have a suitable therapy or vaccine: We are going to have to focus on finding a way to protect the vulnerable AND keep a functional economy at the same time. These extreme temporary measures will hopefully save thousands of lives, and I think we're all on board with that. But it is just that... temporary.
  13. Of course that's what you meant, Tim. And anyone who is arguing against this in this thread isn't rooted in reality and doesn't deserve the attention.