NE_REVIVAL

Members
  • Content count

    1,463
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

120 Excellent

About NE_REVIVAL

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    New England Patriots

Recent Profile Visitors

4,406 profile views
  1. Agreed, but I think there will be a lot of ground and pound type games and Gilly can/will give them more (maybe a lot more) in the passing game than Blount ever did. Blount had only 7 recs on 527 snaps last season while Gilly had 9 on 283 AND he is now on an offense with a much better qb and one that is more than happy to throw to rbs.
  2. IMHO people are sleeping big time on Gillislee and he is likely going to have a big year. In dynasty I have seen where Lynch is going well ahead of him and I just don't get it (should be reverse). Re-draft or Dynasty I like Gillislee, but dynasty in particular where his adp is around end of the 11th after guys like Lynch, AP, L. Murray, Powell etc. Of course im the same guy who last year thought White would have little to no value once Lewis was healthy
  3. I believe the chances of Brady retiring if (when?) he wins another SB are slim. As his father said, it will likely end badly and he will need to be dragged off the field. Re the team, I agree it may be as simple as BB not worrying about it this yr and evaluating the situation again in 2018. Yes at some point the team will need to move on but I think (hope!) it is at least 2,3+ years away and even then I don't expect Brady will go quietly into the night. Maybe he spends the last year or 2 of his career playing in home town SF should the timing work out?
  4. I agree there is no way he plays at his current contract number and I think it is probably 50-50 at best he agrees to another massive cut and stays. I certainly hope he stays, if you watch their last 2 SB wins he made key plays in both and he has proven he can\will play well when it matters most. Count me among those thinking Edelman is nearing the end (much like Welker he has taken a beating and its beginning to show); Amendola is an ideal backup for the team at wr & punt returner. Primarily just a matter of dollars and I think Amendola has to know he is worth more to NE than anywhere else and he isn't likely to find all that much money elsewhere. Having said that, he keeps playing well for them in the biggest games and yet they keep cutting his pay. At some point he may decide enuf is enuf and go. Hope the team makes a strong effort to keep him, he deserves it.
  5. Agree to disagree on trump continuing Obama policy; how has trump been different from the first 7 1/2 years of the obama admin, reset, red line etc?. Imho Obama clearly tried to be buddy buddy with putin pretty much right until the end when he decided it was in "his" best interest not to be. You remember Obamas ("This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility" comments to putin, right?) Maybe trump will cower and give it all away to putin like obama did, but I dont think he will and I don't think it is fair to crucify him in advance. Thank u for the exchange, ill be checking out for a while shortly (trip).
  6. No your not "pointing out" out anything, you are making ridiculously false equivalency's between trump continuing obama/clinton/reid/schumer/pelosi US policy toward russia and the nyt covering up the death of millions for ideological reasons; it is absolutely ludicrous. You also insist on making a false equivalency between putin and stalin. Both are certainly bad guys, but one horrific bad guy is responsible for many, many millions of deaths (the one durranty and the NYT knowingly, falsely praised) and one isn't. Your implying that they are anywhere near the same is preposterous. The argument is absurd and i don't have the time to waste on it any longer.
  7. Trump has been a politician for less than 2 years and potus less than 2 months; imho you are being hysterical over basically nothing. Obama and Clinton have been buddy buddy with putin virtually their entire administration and you want to crucify trump for basically continuing us policy, i just don't get the hysterics. The reset, the uranium, crimea, assad, chemical weapons, red lines, the funding of irans nuclear program etc and your big concern is 2 months in office trump hasn't condemned putin? Obama has praised and enabled putin for 8 years and i think trump deserves a little more than 2 months in office.
  8. Again, the afc stuff is silly nonsense (imho) that has nothing to do with anything were talking about. Your not accusing trump of something? Haha, you are trying (unconvincingly) to smear him with all this meaningless afc stuff. Yes, trump is an america first guy, so what, that doesn't make him the afc or lindbergh or lindberghs baby. Lets agree to disagree that the afc and the nyt times knowingly ignoring and printing lies about soviet genocide are anything like each other or pertinent to the discussion and move on.
  9. No, we cannot say that the afc was the same as the newspaper of record (alleged journalists) knowingly, repeatedly lying about millions dying. It’s a ridiculous claim for you to make so please give it a rest, they are not the same. Concede what? What banner is trump supposedly carrying? You want to make him out to be the devil incarnate when he has been in the office 40 days. All these bad things you say about Putin, you understand that Obama and Hillary have some responsibility while trump has zero. You do concede that point, right? You want to demagogue trump, demonize him for some comments he has made? Really? You want me to concede that trump has said things regarding putin (and other things) that I do not agree with, sure no problem I concede that point. If you want me to agree that he is all these other ridiculous and hysterically nasty things you want to pin on him, no that is your imaginanation/dislike run wild. He has been in office 40 days all the bad things you listed about putin occurred when barry & hillary were EMBRACING HIM! They ignored the misdeeds and kissed his rear while getting their clocks cleaned. And yet you demonize trump……… its absurd. We both agree that putin is a bad guy, right? We both agree that barry & hillary shouldn’t have been enabling and embracing him for 7 and ¾ years. Right? So trump has pretty much endorsed the same policy we have had with them for 8 years prior and yet you demonize him. Its been 40 days, give him a chance; hillary and barry had 8 years. What actual evidence, instance do you have (specifically), that he has done to get your shorts in such a twist? Let me give you the first one, yes he has inartfully “said” things with regard to putin, America and other things I do not agree with. I would however add that trumps comments pale in comparison to the deeds done and not done during the previous 8 years of the previous admin. No sorry, A. putin isn’t stalin B. trump making offhand remarks pre presidency isn’t worse or in fact anything like the nyt covering up stalins genocide; you are being ridiculous. C. In fact trumps remarks aren’t nearly as bad as the putin action/inaction from barry & Hillary over EIGHT years. D. trumps remarks aren’t as bad as Barry giving (illegally I might add) billions to our enemies in iran who have been killing our soldiers for years and help them, HELP THEM go nuclear. E. trumps remarks aren’t nearly as bad as shamefully trading a deserter for high level terrorist enemies who will undoubtedly kill more of our soldiers. F. trumps words aren't nearly as bad as releasing our enemies (the worst of the worst) from gitmo so they can kill our soldiers again and again and again. G. trumps words aren’t nearly as bad as the aid and comfort obama continually provided to dictatorial/authoritarian regimes enemy or otherwise during his entire administration. H. trumps words aren’t nearly as bad as some of the anti American things barry and many, many other democrats have been saying for years, decades! Hard to deny that trashing America always has been and always will be a favorite past time of the left so spare us the faux outrage.
  10. I gave the one example because it was/is the most horrific and demonstrates the lengths committed progressives will go for their cause. As far as your question I would say it is a silly comparison. Firstly Putin isn't Stalin, (not in the process of killing millions), secondly trump isn't a "journalist" knowingly writing lies for the paper of record while millions are dying. Just curious, did you do a lot of posts when Barak n Hillary did their reset with russia? Gave them all that Uranium? Did nothing about crimea? How about when barak made that debate crack to romney about the 80s wanting their foreign policy back, did you scream that romney was right? Surely you heard of the Clinton Foundation and you made many posts warning about the comically obvious pay for play that was going on. Or did you, like the previous admin (and progressive media) decide that after 8 years of feckless inaction and dereliction of duty decide that with a new admin coming in it was in your best interest to suddenly get hysterical about russia? The whole trump-russia conspiracy rigging the election nonsense is fake news created and propagated by progressives in gov (state, ic, etc) politicians and in the media.
  11. My position is that the nyt has demonstrated the lengths they will go to promote an ideological agenda. Their news is filtered through a progressive prism and often times dishonest.
  12. The organization that mistakenly gave duranty a prize in the first place not revoking it after 71 years when all principals are dead and unable to respond doesn't seem like nearly enough evidence for you to then insist against mountains of evidence to the contrary that he wasn't purposely lying; and yet you do.... I don't care that you have a "low" opinion of duranty, I care about the great lengths you are going in order to defend him and claim he was merely duped by those damn russians. I don't think u actually believe that, i think you likely know what the truth of the matter is (how could u not?) but the truth is inconvenient so you want to ignore it. I was more than willing to address the trump/putin nonsense, but if I can't even get you to acknowledge what is widely accepted as fact (duranty knowingly lied) I can't justify wasting anymore time with you. Your position (in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) is that duranty wasn't a liar, he was merely duped, i am certain he knowingly lied on numerous occasions. We are done here.
  13. The evidence that he intentionally lied is overwhelming and not in dispute. Now that you have made the claim that Duranty simply wasn't aware and merely duped can you show me what if anything (other than wishful thinking) you are basing that opinion on?
  14. With all due respect you miss the point entirely. The point of fact isn't that the socialists in the soviet union duped Duranty and the nyt, the fact is Duranty & nyt knew that millions were dying but their LOVE of socialism precluded them from honestly reporting those facts to the american people. It is not that Stalin lied, its that Duranty and the supposed paper of record nyt will lie for ideological reasons no matter what the cost and its horrendous. As one of the best known correspondents in the world for one of the best known newspapers in the world, Mr. Duranty's denial that there was a famine was accepted as gospel. Thus Mr. Duranty gulled not only the readers of the New York Times but because of the newspaper's prestige, he influenced the thinking of countless thousands of other readers about the character of Josef Stalin and the Soviet regime. And he certainly influenced the newly-elected President Roosevelt to recognize the Soviet Union. What is so awful about Duranty is that Times top brass suspected that Duranty was writing Stalinist propaganda, but did nothing. In her exposé "Stalin's Apologist: Walter Duranty, the New York Times's man in Moscow," S.J. Taylor makes it clear that Carr Van Anda, the managing editor, Frederick T. Birchall, an assistant managing editor, and Edwin L. James, the later managing editor, were troubled with Duranty's Moscow reporting but did nothing about it. Birchall recommended that Duranty be replaced but, says Taylor, "the recommendation fell by the wayside." http://www.weeklystandard.com/pulitzer-winning-lies/article/4040
  15. I don't want to go back and rehash point by point, but I appreciate you making an earnest effort at debate rather than reply with insults like so many others in here (Henry and TF come immediately to mind). We would have been better served had we made sure we understood each others definition of Fake News. I agree that your definition of "Fake News" (websites that are not true journalism sites) can contribute to fake news and could be considered "a" valid definition for the term. However, I believe the FP author, current potus and millions who voted for him have a much broader and imho more accurate definition for the term. When "journalists" report something whether by web, twitter, tv, print etc without proper (or zero) verification it often turns out to be fake/dishonest news. When that fake news is immediately zoomed around the social sphere (IE the world) and amplified it matters little that we later find out after the fact that the report was largely inaccurate or at best highly misleading. Many can't help but notice the abandonment of journalistic standards with regard to the current potus and the death by a thousand cuts of fake/dishonest news meant to undermine him in every way imaginable (both big & small). FWIW progressives, if he is soooo bad and horrible, why do you need to lie and exaggerate so much? When progressives in the IC selectively and appallingly release classified information anonymously for no other reason than to hurt and undermine the duly elected potus that is dishonest news (and treasonous). When NPR reports “House Votes to Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales to the Severely Mentally Ill” That is horrendously fake/dishonest tax payer funded news reporting. I'll gladly take u up on it if u disagree, but u must read this first and we will go from there. When for ideological reasons CBS and Dan Rather fabricated a story about George W Bush in an attempt to hurt his election that was fake/dishonest news (much like the Russia BS now). When for ideological reasons the NYT reports on how well socialism in the soviet union is going while millions are dying, that is fake/dishonest news. When CNN covers up stories of Iraqi atrocities, reports of murder, torture, and planned assassinations for more than a decade, that is fake/dishonest news. At any rate I appreciate the exchange and your willingness and ability to engage in debate without resorting to insults because someone doesn't agree with you.