Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stoneworker

  1. Mainly X. Hamler in slot. Lock/Bridgewater liked Benson for bootleg crossing patterns like TD at 2:48 of highlight. Broncos didn't use Benson as a KR. In fact, lack of special teams made him expendable since he was competing with Hamilton/Spencer for fifth WR spot. Those two are lesser WR's but better KR's. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRFu7avbDQ8
  2. As a Broncos fan I highly doubt Benson was going to be cut. He's gritty with a my ball mentality. Great cultural fit for what the Lions are trying to build. Besides, giving up a 5th and 7th in return for a 6th is not a ton of draft capital.
  3. Noah Lyles, US men's 200m champion, overall class act 2:38 of video for quote...great shot of holding flag at 2:55 I want to give 'em a show...and having the U.S. on [gestures across chest] makes you feel really strong...you know, you're the best of the best. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plRmou5aU28&t=175s
  4. Amplify the achievements of the class acts...not give oxygen to the idiots. Deanna Price just shattered the American female hammer throw record and is the one FAR more deserving of attention. I love my country, we have a lot of issues, but what's great is that I get to represent a country that's given me so much. That is literally goal #1. And so I can say thank you to those who have sacrificed... quote at 3:18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb8Ac1KuS-c "Without question the best series in the history of U.S. women's hammer throw" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2ombH91D4w&t=52s
  5. Seems pretty hypocritical. When health care was deemed a "right" by the Democrats, they were perfectly fine mandating by law that young, healthy taxpayers disproportionately subsidize that right. “The council has made clear that while the Second Amendment certainly protects the right for every citizen to own a gun, it does not mandate that taxpayers subsidize that right,” Mayor Sam Liccardo said at a news conference Wednesday.
  6. Thanks. Doesn't matter what the left "tells me." I won't be supporting law-abiding citizens asymetrically bearing the costs and responsibilities created by criminals, terrorists and nut jobs anytime soon.
  7. Because there is no proven causal relationship between criminal mass shootings and the perfectly sane person legally following the law buying a gun who then immediately sticks it in their nightstand and never uses it once. Or the stereotypical hunter, etc. In your example of alcohol and tobacco there is arguably no "safe" usage of those products. Plus those fees are tied to amount of usage so abuse of those products correlates with health risk and corresponding public health costs. If there was a subgroup that was proven to be prone to potential criminal/unsafe public gun use behavior then I might think differently about singling them out to asymetrically subsidize this type of insurance/fund. Until then everyone or no one.
  8. Please show me where I commented on legality.
  9. Not IMO. Because that's tied to safe, legal usage.
  10. The amount of the fee is completely irrelevant. It's discriminatory in its application.
  11. The automobile analogy is a horrible one. 99% of people purchase cars with the intention of using them in close proximity with other cars. So there is inherent risk that using one's own car in ordinary usage will come into contact with other persons's vehicles. Unless used for criminal purposes, most legal gun use (hunting, gun ranges, backyard target practice) is done at safe distances from others. So the risk of interaction using a gun in ordinary usage is inherently low. Beyond that, now the government is going to charge a fee for every middle-age, single woman to purchase a gun, train herself at the gun range, and keep it in her nightstand for peace of mind? The whole thing makes zero sense.
  12. So much for healing and moving forward. As expected, Partisan Pelosi doubles down on linkage. In a closed-door meeting with her caucus in the Capitol, Pelosi said her initial strategy — to withhold a House infrastructure vote until the Senate passes a larger, partisan families plan — remains unchanged, according to lawmakers in attendance. "What the Speaker has said, and I totally agree with her, is that we're not going to vote on one until the Senate sends us both," Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, told reporters after the meeting. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/560784-pelosi-rebuffs-mcconnell-on-infrastructure
  13. Agree. But I don't think GOP is at all looking to hold up the bipartisan bill. It's the exact opposite. All McConnell's current rhetoric is aimed at accelerating it.
  14. Agree with your conclusion but not sure I follow the first paragraph entirely. IMO responsible gov't would allow both to be worked on in parallel...it's just that infrastructure is smaller and further along so would naturally get it to the finish line first. In that case GOP should be completely on board since it would be stand-alone and don't understand why they would need to "see" exactly everything that's in reconciliation. Manchin and other moderate Democrats will serve as GOP's proxy to keep it a reasonable size and scopoe. What I would object to is Pelosi's bellicose declaration that both absolutely need to be at the finish line before sending over to House. That would require infrastructure to be unnaturally delayed for reconciliation to catch up.
  15. Democrats are still in the early stages of trying to figure out how big to go in a Democratic-only infrastructure bill. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/560686-manchin-says-hes-on-board-with-democratic-only-infrastructure-bill
  16. Yes. You are more precise...just using the same shorthand being used in the media. The fact there has been a framework already agreed upon by the president makes the bi-partisan approach much further along in the process is my point. Yes that is a presumption but I don't believe the reconciliation bill the Democrats have been working on contemplated the bi-partisan deal going this far. So whatever progress was made there will likely require substantial revisions. After recess I believe it's up to Schumer to set the Senate agenda for the two "bills" given their respective progress, then prioritize and allocate resources. That's where the "shenanigans" would come into play.
  17. Seems the infrastructure bill is much further along procedurally in the Senate. So unless the recon bill is incredibly simple can't see how it can practically catch up to meet Pelosi's demand of simultaneously delivery...without Schumer shenanigans. It may take two years for Manchin and Bernie to get on the same page.
  18. Way too many extraordinary athletes and solid citizens representing the States to be distracted by this one idiot. Class act Noah Lyles and Kenny Bednarek talking about how happy to represent USA in 200m, Sydney McLaughlin humbly thanking God last night after setting a world record, women's gymnasts sporting stars & stripes sunglasses, etc. The future role models are all around these trials...and IMO much more enjoyable to amplify than giving oxygen to a disrespectful sideshow.
  19. 60 percent of Republicans favor bi-partisan bill. More independents favor bi-partisan bill than original Biden plan (54 vs 46 percent). Only 17 percent of any affiliation oppose. This is a slam dunk. Hopefully the Congressional Democrats won't screw it up. https://news.yahoo.com/poll-6-in-10-gop-voters-favor-new-12-trillion-infrastructure-plan-boosting-bidens-hopes-of-a-big-bipartisan-win-201833741.html
  20. So according to the libs the police are racist, brutal...and now "snowflakey." Seems a bit of a personality contradiction but nothing a few cure-all mental health dollars wouldn't rectify I suppose.
  21. Hasn't pretty much every major city in the country seen hundreds of police officers quit and retire due to lack of public support over the past year?
  22. I'll remain skeptical until actions prove otherwise. Pelosi and Schumer may or may not be "smart Democrats"....but as Congressional leadership their actions sure gave best efforts to derail this thing just two hours in.
  23. Agreed. It is generally good legislation IMO and Biden deserves credit for a thoughtful written retraction. Hopefully it holds up and the process won't get derailed by Congress. Democrats won the election and deserve their rightful turn to pass some social priorities and raise some pay-for money during reconciliation...but I believe this will give Manchin, et al the leverage to keep it reasonable (from a moderate's POV).
  24. LMAO at Biden talking out of both sides of his mouth. And the GOP are the liars? Going to be fun to see how Nancy & the Progressives respond to this one. He said of the infrastructure bill on Thursday that "if this is the only thing that comes to me, I’m not signing it." "My comments [Thursday] created the impression that I was issuing a veto threat on the very plan I had just agreed to, which was certainly not my intent" https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-up-pressure-lawmakers-infrastructure-talks-enter-next-stage-2021-06-26/
  • Create New...