Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Thread (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter JohnnyU
- Start date
squistion
Footballguy
Yes there was. For over a year you ridiculed me and was insistent that there was nothing to Kaep's collusion grievance suit and you felt that it had no merit whatsoever
You were wrong. If indeed there was nothing to his claim of being blackballed and all teams decidedly independently not to sign him due to his lack of talent (as you kept insisting) then the NFL never would have a made a big bucks out of court settlement to buy his silence and make him go away. It makes no sense they would have settled if they felt that the arbitrator would rule in their favor,
Last edited by a moderator:
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Good man.
Is it feasible for politicians on a national stage to avoid commenting about individual situation like Smollett until the facts come in and focus on the broader issues as they relate to stories like this? Or is it more important to stay in the spotlight? The later worked for Trump.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Follow Tim's example...also maybe invite Wreck to the Kap thread where you can discuss things such as Kap.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
First paragraph - You're a liar and trolling as usual.
Second paragraph - My claim was that there was no proof there was collusion. I never commented on what the outcome would be. And as of now, I'm 100% correct. There has been zero proof of collusion provided depsite the mental gymnastics you're performing. No matter how many times you repeat your lies doesn't make them true.
Take this nonsense back to the Kaep thread.
sho nuff
Footballguy
No I just think it’s interesting that a few people are so concerned that she and a few others took what was reported and commented on it...when nothing is said about actual lies.
Thank you. Maybe squistion and rambling wreck will stop cluttering the thread with their slap fight stuff. Please stop and take it somewhere else.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
I'm out. Already said take it back to the Kaep thread a few posts above. But what do you expect is going to happen when you let Tim troll someone in one thread for an entire evening, then bring it over here and carry it on for another day, then try to play the innocent "Done" card. He knows exactly what he's doing and that others will pile on.
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
That is the problem of rushing to judgement before the facts were in. the Chicago PD were skeptical from the start but we have public politicians running their mouths to pander to their base to get them fired up. It is as wrong as when Trump does the same thing.
Unless reporters press them on the topic I would be surprised if any of them even comment again on the case..it will slowly drift away.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Sure and I agree that they should give things more thoughts before tweeting (said as much about her with the green stuff that she needs to do so).
I just think there is an interesting dynamic and you aren’t a part of that really, but where some will immediately jump that people tweeted reactions to a story before the facts are out...and they say little to nothing of outbright lies pushed by others. And known lies.
It as if they want one group held to a higher standard than another.
timschochet
Footballguy
I think this is a fascinating question. Politicians probably feel the need to comment about everything. Certainly our age of social media has only heightened that.
But there is another aspect to this that goes back to what we were discussing before and which is central to this thread: the question of AOC’s popularity. I would imagine there were dozens of politicians who commented on Smolett, all of them hoping to make the news, to be reported on. Most of them did not make the news; AOC is one of the very few who did.
So yet once again, as in the Amazon story, as with the Green New Deal, as with the State of the Union speech (in which the tv cameras focused on her at least a dozen times) with the Smolett story we are exposed to the views of this freshman congresswoman with little influence and almost no political experience, who frankly and unfortunately ends up embarrassing herself at least half the time. You could argue that, like Donald Trump she is a master of self-promotion, yet it’s hard to see what if anything she’s doing that’s causing this.
My own working theory is that neither she nor anyone else is behind this, that it’s almost all a combination of luck, chance, and cirncumatance. But I don’t know if I’m right.
timschochet
Footballguy
I like to think of my previous post as the Tolstoy theory. In War and Peace Tolstoy theorized that Napoleon was no great historical figure; according to Tolstoy there are no great historical figures. He believed that Napoleon was a product of chance and luck basically riding a wave of success until a bigger wave (in the form of the Russians) knocked him down and out.
It’s a very interesting theory but I’m not ready to apply it to all of history (or even Napoleon, who may have been a military genius) the way Tolstoy was. But I do think it’s true some of the time and I believe it may well apply to AOC. I can’t really come up with another reason for her sudden and dominant notoriety.
It’s a very interesting theory but I’m not ready to apply it to all of history (or even Napoleon, who may have been a military genius) the way Tolstoy was. But I do think it’s true some of the time and I believe it may well apply to AOC. I can’t really come up with another reason for her sudden and dominant notoriety.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Yeah I don’t think it’s a surprise that people that are trying to stand up for social issues will comment when a major social issue hits the news. And even that said, yes in today’s day and age they need to learn a little more restraint than running to Twitter at the first piece of news.
timschochet
Footballguy
But that’s not going to happen. Twitter results in less restraint, not more. Nobody is going to want to take the chance that they get left behind.
For a politician, it might be better to be wrong than to be silent.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
AAABatteries
Footballguy
This is like asking the Pope to not be Catholic - just put them on ignore and save the rest of us from the slap fight.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
This is going to sound like a joke but is a serious question - do we know if cow farts are impacted at all if their diet is changed from grains to grass?
AAABatteries
Footballguy
It’s easy enough to preface any of these comments with - “this story, as we currently understand it, is disturbing. Hopefully we find out the full story and the guilty parties will be punished....”. Something like that should do it.
timschochet
Footballguy
Senator Harris, how did you feel about Senator Booker’s comment?
I thought it was tepid, weak. Hopefully we find out the full story? Come on Corey we know the full story!
Etc. Way too much pressure to come straight out with a reaction. What you’re suggesting won’t work.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
In that case nobody will remember the caveat. The news media, always limited in space, won’t report that part, and if you try to bring it up afterwards you’ll just look like a slimy excuse making lawyer.
Widbil83
Footballguy
Apologize if this has been posted already, but wow. Get your popcorn ready because we got a Democratic Party civil war brewing.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/430322-dem-rep-from-nyc-district-amazon-pulled-out-of-it-used-to-be-that-we-would
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/430322-dem-rep-from-nyc-district-amazon-pulled-out-of-it-used-to-be-that-we-would
timschochet
Footballguy
Smack Tripper
Footballguy
I had hopes, and maybe I was naive to think she'd be anything less than politics as usual, but her attempt to disavow her role in Amazon pulling out after she first spiked the football but changing when the magnitude of it set in was dishearteneing. This was on the heels of her grade school level lies about the FAQ on her site, trying to pawn it off as doctored or an early draft when she saw how the wind was blowing. The price of fame is bad press sometimes, not sure what she expects.
zoonation
Footballguy
She’s young, attractive, awesome at social media, and actually anti establishment. She appeals to millennials. Unlike trump, who is dc corruption on steroids, notwithstanding he sold his base on the fact that he isn’t. One of the many ironies of his presidency.timschochet said:
msommer
Footballguy
I believe we do, and the answer, IIRC, is no. (Also, the main culprit is cow burps).AAABatteries said:
We have studies that show that the addition of seaweed or strains of oregano as addition to the main feedsource can reduce burps (by reducing methane generation) and release by 90%+
Last edited by a moderator:
The Narrator
Footballguy
You're not wrong. This fight is going down to the individual district level.
It's reminiscent of the recent fight for the soul of the Republican party that was won by the folks who think there are fine nazis, so maybe don't get too high and mighty about it.
timschochet
Footballguy
The argument over Amazon is not very different from the argument over the Trans Pacific Partnership.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This is a good point. With some folks, the real issue is capitalism. All the other stuff is just window dressing. For example, imagine a counter-factual in which Amazon was building a HQ in NY with no tax incentives of any kind. Does anybody think AOC would have welcomed them in that scenario? I don't. IMO, she and quite a few others were motivated more by the desire to stick it to Amazon than anything else.
Adonis started a thread a few weeks ago that I thought expressed a weird level of hatred toward Amazon and a few other firms merely for existing. That mindset is definitely out there.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I think there were plenty of reasons to oppose Amazon that were not “stick it to Amazon.” Not the least of which being the fact that it would have continued a very controversial trend of gentrifying a section of Queens and destroying chances for affordable housing.
The Narrator
Footballguy
In fairness, capitalism prioritizes capital - it's right in the name - instead of people. I understand that defense of capitalism is conservative dogma, but it comes at a cost and isn't all roses.
jonessed
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
It's tough to do that with actual gas release, but a number of different agricultural businesses use methane digesters and methane gas recovery devices for manure. It's an economically viable energy source and also turns manure into a sort of super-fertilizer.bradyfan said:
Just like I don't think billionaires should be asking for the public to build them new stadiums, they also should not be playing some charade to get different communities groveling to them to build something in their city. If every city told Amazon to go F themselves, they would still build it somewhere, while also leaving the city an extra 3bil or whatever they would have given up to fund more jobs or improve other stuff.
It would set poor precedent for this to become commonplace, especially since the "ask" will keep going up to the point where it would exceed what is actually generated for the city, also like publicly funded stadiums.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
1. This will never happen. Already there are cities competing for Amazon and that’s a good thing.
2. What 3 billion dollars? No offense but you’re following AOC’s skewed logic here. You need to generate income in order to spend it.
1. A federal law shouldn’t be that hard to pass.
2. The $3 billion or so that Amazon would pay to whatever city it locates its headquarters in if it didn’t get $3 billion in tax breaks.
timschochet
Footballguy
1. This one would be. It actually might be unconstitutional for the federal government to restrict how local municipalities are allowed to use resources, tax, and spend money.
2. It’s not an either or. When Amazon chose not to go to Queens, it doesn’t mean Queens now has 3 billion ready to spend elsewhere.
1. I don’t think it’s unconstitutional.
2. If Amazon had chosen to go to Queens, and Queens didn’t give Amazon $3 billion in tax breaks, then Queens would have an extra $3 billion to spend compared to the scenario where Queens did give Amazon $3 billion in tax breaks.
Last edited by a moderator:
supermike80
Footballguy
Dedfin
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
So now Queens gets their wish - let's make darn sure everyone in the area stays poor. Yay - quite a win there.
And there should be. AOC and some compatriots actively and deliberately stabbed their colleagues in the back. Should make for one hell of a Christmas party. If any of them believe in Christmas, that is.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
This doesn't seem all that consistent with the size and makeup of the NYC area. The issue I'm discussing is not "Where will people from Queens find jobs???" Queens has very low unemployment. You can work in areas outside of Queens and live in Queens. The question is "where will people who don't make huge amounts of money and live in NYC live?"
The entire LIC area is about 20,000 people. NYC has about 9 million people. Of course the people who don't live there or near there would prefer it to happen - it doesn't affect them in the same way.
Sand
Footballguy
Dedfin
Footballguy
Similar threads
