The Bye Week Bi-Babe

It’s that time of year (four weeks earlier than originally planned) to announce this years winner of the coveted Bye Week Bi-Babe selection. As usual the voting was very close. As you know candidates are judged by an assortment of available quotes, sexy pics and who has a chance at you guys liking, it isn’t easy. So here she is…

This years winner –

Aubrey Plaza

Congratulations, Ms Plaza. She looks completely thrilled, doesn’t she?

“I know I have an androgynous thing going on, and there’s something masculine about my energy,” Plaza said in an interview with the Advocate. “Girls are into me – that’s no secret. Hey, I’m into them too. I fall in love with girls and guys. I can’t help it.”

We’re honored to have Ms Plaza recognized as this year’s Bi-Babe as the Miami Dolphins move to a new beginning of sorts with this upcoming game featuring Tua Tagovailoa.

It’s Tua Time!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1,018 Responses to The Bye Week Bi-Babe

  1. steveccnv says:

    She looks more like the bitch of the week, I don’t see it.

    • D says:

      She has a odd look to her, and there are much better shots of her. I think she is attractive, just not in a traditional way, much the same with cara delevingne who i do absolutely find her attractive lol.

  2. CavalierKong says:

    I was trying to figure out what I’ve seen her in.
    Scott Pilgrim vs The World

  3. steveccnv says:

    D says:
    October 26, 2020 at 3:28 pm
    Kong,

    Worked for the Cards because they completely redid their entire team, coaching etc, and brought in a coach that wanted to run a system that was perfect for him and not for Rosen, i dont think its the same circumstance.

    Of course it’s not the same circumstance, but it could still work or could be done, you don’t need a coaching change. Lawrence has the prototypical size, arm strength, movement, he’s got it all. He’s Wentz, without the eradict play.

    No reason we couldn’t trade Tua and take Lawrence, if we had the top pick, but I don’t see it happening, so these what its are moot.

    • D says:

      I agree its moot, but as for me, i wouldn’t think that our coaches or FO is in a place where they would consider it. Lawrence also isn’t better than Tua. I mean we have the rest of the season to see, but even if he has some rough outings, im not seeing Lawrence being an upgrade, especially not so large a one to bail on your 5th overall selection from the previous year.

  4. son of a son of a shula says:

    Wyo, I would have gone with Michelle Rodriguez but she was dating last year’s winner and that wouldn’t have appeared right.

  5. TOP SECRET says:

    she’s actually the type of woman i’m attracted to, not bad looking and crazy as fuck.

  6. steveccnv says:

    Back to Tua Time, it’s going to be like opening day all over again. I hope the results are different this time.

    I missed Marino’s first game. Sept 1983 I was traveling and in transit to move to L.A. Went to Gainsville to watch the U vs FL, then went to Purdue to visit a HS friend and watch the ND game, then drove as far as Houston to take stuff to Burbank. When I got home I looked up the box score and saw the great game Marino had, even in defeat I was thrilled. I hope Tua’s first game comes with a W, but if it’s anything like Dan’s first game…

    • TOP SECRET says:

      i was in japan so i couldn’t watch it

    • TOP SECRET says:

      i do remember watching the prior super bowl to MARINO’S draft (well, the first quarter) in guam. then had to board a c-130 headed to the island of tinian and couldn’t watch the rest of the game. hell, i didn’t even find out the score for 12 days until i got back to base.

  7. TOP SECRET says:

    KONG, from the last page ;
    my personal motto was ” i don’t want to die for my country, i want to make him die for his”….. just saying. 🙂

  8. Rockphin says:

    She was also in the Marvel TV series “Legion” on FX (cancelled after 2 seasons) She played one of Legions multiple personalities, a real wackado.

    (in case some don’t follow Marvel enough to know, Legion is Professor X from the X-men’s illegitimate son and is the most powerful psychic mutant ever born, supposedly strong enough in the comics to destroy the entire universe)

  9. stangerx says:

    Son — maybe cause am going OD, but still into more classic and girly bi-babes.

    • TOP SECRET says:

      funny little known fact……olivia actually gave me a hug and kissed my cheek on my 21st birthday outside the playboy club in the abc entertainment center in los angeles. and in front of 5 guys in my platoon, so i’m glad i had witnesses because that was way before cell phones, lol.

    • TOP SECRET says:

      one of my “forrest gump” brush with fame moments…..lol.

    • stangerx says:

      You are a lucky man…… and take it cause it happened she is a nice woman.

  10. Rockphin says:

    Son likes his “dirty girls”

  11. Rockphin says:

    Guys (don’t tell Herd) but they are ALL crazy. It’s just how crazy that comes into play.

    • D says:

      Well there is crazy and waking up to someone staring at you like they were just about to put a ice pick in your ear crazy.

      • Rockphin says:

        that fall under the “danger zone” area of the chart above. LOL

        I dated a girl who was super hot, model hot, way too hot to ever even speak to me hot.

        She was bat shit crazy. I thought I could put up with crazy for the crazy sex. Then she burned my car for not calling her back…..

  12. D says:

    Here ya go Stanger

  13. TOP SECRET says:

    don’t mean to offend anyone but that song “crazy bitch” sums it ALL up for me.

  14. herdfan says:

    Rockphin says:
    October 26, 2020 at 4:12 pm (Edit)

    Guys (don’t tell Herd) but they are ALL crazy. It’s just how crazy that comes into play.

    ahem….I do read….not sure where intelligence is on that chart of yours?

    Here’s what I’ve learned in all my years. Everyone is crazy, men and women. I have some crazy in me, no doubt about it. Not torch your car crazy, but I have had my moments. Guys, at least the ones I’ve known, CRAZY af. So here it is, in case you didn’t know. We think men are just as crazy as you think women are.

    • sb7mvp says:

      Yeah, but you’re crazy. Of course you think that. 😉 Lol

    • stangerx says:

      LOL Herd — but you’ve never met Rock. He’s stable as stable can be. You meet him and it is like there’s the Pope, Sswami, Dalai Lama or something.

    • steveccnv says:

      I agree with Herd, guys are crazy. Hell I want due process, lower taxes, energy independence, 1st and 2nd amendments to stay as they are, private health care, and a job, so I’ve been told I’m crazy.

    • Krishna says:

      LMAO…yep.

      We’re all crazy…just have to find the perfect crazy.

      • stangerx says:

        Yeah — crazy in different ways in some ways and on average, but no escaping crazy….. except for my Mom of course. 🙂

    • D says:

      If you cant establish normal, you cant establish crazy so etiehr everyone is a variation of crazy, or they are a variation of normal.

  15. sb7mvp says:

    This just in:
    Dolphins organization announces Tua as starter. Fans blog immediately talks of drafting replacement and trading veteran backup.

  16. wyoming85 says:

  17. wyoming85 says:

  18. wyoming85 says:

    I think Herd is 102.54738264% correct!

  19. Krishna says:

    Well, that was hilarious catching up today.

    Tua hasn’t shown shit yet.

    Can we watch him for 10 games first before we speculate on next QB pick? Sure hope Fitz stays.

    Like a bunch of ?s gossiping. Lmao.

  20. Krishna says:

    “Not torch your car crazy, but moments….”

    Like Danaerius in GoT? Scorched earth?

    It happens….lol.

  21. Krishna says:

    New list:

    Hypocrite on SCOTUS nomination (it’s only been 4 years):

    Graham
    Mitchell
    Orob
    Mf13ss

    Who will own their hypocrisy? I’m thinking no one else will put their name on the list.

    Just curious.

    • stangerx says:

      Don’t worry about it. It happened, even if was interesting to play back all the comments when Mitch blocked Garland. Power does what power does. But heck — some dems are talking about expanding the court.

      • Krishna says:

        Not worried at all….you of all people should know me.

        Only reason brought it up is beacause of pp’s comment if you don’t bring it up you’re in agreement. I brought it up, so to be sure, I don’t agree.

  22. wyoming85 says:

    Why the Butt Hurtedness Krishna?

    You know if the Democrats had the majority in the Senate they would have done the same thing with Garland right?

    • Krishna says:

      Do your job as Senate body…. not butt hurt, guess you missed the hypocrisy part. Should your name be on the list?

    • TOP SECRET says:

      winning elections have consequences………lol.

    • Krishna says:

      BE HERE NOW…. more of a

    • stangerx says:

      Heck yeah they would have. But sorta fun seeing the clips of what the GOP senators said at the time. They were all righteous about it. Turns out they were just doing what you are talking about.

      • TOP SECRET says:

        funny how you had odumma as prez but didn’t control the senate in 2016. kind of like comparing apples to oranges, huh?…..your tears taste like victory…..lol.

      • stangerx says:

        Top — I never voted for Obama. So not sure why you mention. I liked the old days when High Court Noms were judged on qualifications…. whichever side put them up.

      • TOP SECRET says:

        ok sorry, the way you hate on TRUMP and anyone that sides with him, i thought you did.

      • stangerx says:

        I’m a NeverTrump guy…. not like am hiding it. But with that comes that 98% of my votes in my life have been Republican. And have a lot of pro-Trump friends….so not hate, just discussion.

      • TOP SECRET says:

        ok, i just can’t hate on anyone that loves America like TRUMP, but now those blm marxist and antifa pussies can suck on a bag of dicks

      • stangerx says:

        Not a fan of the far left either. Why was so happy it is Biden instead of Bernie. Not sure what would have done otherwise…. but probably vote Trump.

  23. wyoming85 says:

    New list:

    Hypocrite on SCOTUS nomination (it’s only been 4 years):

    Graham
    Mitchell
    Orob
    Mf13ss
    Wyoming85

    Who will own their hypocrisy? I’m thinking no one else will put their name on the list.

    Just curious.
    (like Chucky has an ounce more integrity than Mitch!) 🙄

  24. Krishna says:

    Put your name up, Top. Looks like it’s all about power…

    Lmfao…my point.

    • TOP SECRET says:

      funny how you had odumma as prez but didn’t control the senate in 2016. kind of like comparing apples to oranges, huh?…..your tears taste like victory…..lol.

  25. Tim Knight says:

    For the record I was not looking to replace Tua with Lawrence. I just asked the question if Houston has the top pick which is ours what would you do? I’m in favor of a kings ransom of picks for years to come. Unless Tua is really bad which I don’t think he will be, I think we would trade the pick. That said I don’t think Houston will have the top pick. They’re losing but they’re competitive so they’ll win a few more games. There are 6 teams in the league right now with just 1 win and the Jets at 0, so there is a lot of competition for that top pick.

  26. Tim Knight says:

    Anyone notice that a capital J looks a little strange on this blog? Never noticed before.

  27. Krishna says:

    Hypocrites that can’t admit their hypocrisy….guess that makes sense.

    At least Wyo did…..only truth I see.

    Top, you’ve lost me.

    • TOP SECRET says:

      i still can’t see the hypocrisy, i just assumed they changed their stance on the entire matter AFTER they saw how those cocksuckers treated kavanaugh.

      • Krishna says:

        Uh…the Senate’s job is to vett a SCOTUS nomination and they failed to do that for 8 months under the pretense of the people should choose within an election year.

        Are you dense?

        This is an election year and they voted within 11 DAYS of an election.

        Seriously? Nicest I can be at this point.

      • TOP SECRET says:

        yeah, so dense that i would WASTE my time trying to get another liberal un-constitutionalist on the supreme court, knowing how you don’t have the votes, there genius ……….oh, and this election…….we did………because we did have the votes, lol.

      • Krishna says:

        Top….come back to earth. You can’t even admit your truth. I thought differently of you.

  28. Mike E. says:

    There she is! I dig Aubrey Plaza. Poor Aubrey had a stroke at 20YO, crazy shit. All people who have strokes are crazy, trust me

  29. Mike E. says:

    Tim – I think the font changed. It wasn’t always like that

  30. Krishna says:

    I will wait this out to give everyone on this blog a chance to admit their hypocrisy.

    So far Wyo has stepped up.

    Top, can’t, but his name should go there, too, since it’s all about power.

    Scary as shit to me these arguments about autocracy v democracy. WTF?

  31. Mike E. says:

    It was probably AOC and her comrades who changed the font. Kidding! Just kidding!

  32. Mike E. says:

    Krishna – I see massive amounts of hypocrisy when I see my friends who want Biden put up memes and posts on FB endlessly about how much Trump lies and that’s why they’re voting for Biden. Please, just choosing one liar for a different one. I see it every day and it makes me laugh and get angry at the same time. Major hypocrisy.

    • TOP SECRET says:

      i still can’t see the hypocrisy, i just assumed they changed their stance on the entire matter AFTER they saw how those cocksuckers treated kavanaugh……..things change!

      • Krishna says:

        Seriously? Bubble wrap. Be here now.

        Not sure how this ever changes with tit-for-tat view points.

        At some point one has to step up. I see NO one stepping up.

      • The Flying Pig says:

        Changing a stance and then rationalizing why it’s okay is exactly what hypocrisy is

        You don’t just see it – you are highlighting it in your responses

        The phrase you are looking for isn’t “I don’t see it” it’s “I don’t care”

        Try to be real about it at least

      • stangerx says:

        Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court though.

    • Krishna says:

      Look over there…

      BE HERE NOW, must be an impossibility for hypocrisy.

    • stangerx says:

      Why get angry? You just said they both lie. I could put out how much I think Trump lies, but why bother? Only two choices in the election. And the polls say all but like 3% of minds are made up….. and close to half the votes cast.

      • Krishna says:

        Angry….is that directed at me stangerx?

        Quite frankly, I’m laughing at the hypocrisy. Is that allowed?

        The hypocrisy, wherever it comes from, floors me. Both sides included.

        There’s no anger, mostly sadness.

      • stangerx says:

        I replied to Mike E (you know how the streams work). So no was not about you. Love you man….but you get the idea.

  33. Tim Knight says:

    I want ask this question; If the Democrats had the majority in the Supreme Court, would they be looking to expand it?

    • Krishna says:

      What if question. Lame and irrelevant.

      • Tim Knight says:

        Not sure what that means. The first I heard of it was when Biden was asked about it on 60 Minutes last night.

        But I’ll ask again, what is the question about hypocrisy?

    • The Flying Pig says:

      You mean if it was a 5-4 scotus?

      Or do you mean the majority in Congress (they have the majority in the house but not the senate)?

      • Tim Knight says:

        Joe Biden was asked last night on 60 Minutes if he won the presidency would he push to expand the Supreme Court and he didn’t say no. So to me that is saying he’s open to changing the Constitution because his side has a minority on the Supreme Court. Sounds like Part II of changing things like the Electoral College because it didn’t work for them.

    • stangerx says:

      If the Dems had the majority in the Court they would not be looking to “pack” it. And only some of them are even now.

  34. wyoming85 says:

    They all are swamp creatures!
    Flipping and Flopping!

    To Frack or not to Frack?????
    That is the fracking question!!!!!! 😉

  35. The Flying Pig says:

    I think you meant, “majority in the Senate” not Supreme Court, right Tim?

    • Tim Knight says:

      No, see my reply to you.

      • The Flying Pig says:

        Your reply to me indicates that’s what you meant

        FYI – the size of the Supreme Court is not in the constitution

      • Tim Knight says:

        Oh I thought the makeup of the branches of government are all in the Constitution?

        But I was referring to the question about expanding the Supreme Court. That’s what was asked of Biden last night on 60 Minutes.

  36. Krishna says:

    Yeah, I’m not sure what he means.

  37. Krishna says:

    Question about hypocrisy, to Tim K.

    There are those on this blog that staunchly defended the position that a president does not have the right to select the next SCOTUS within a presidential election year. Therefore, the Senate refused to even have a hearing for his nomination by Obama for eight months since it was within an election year. The argument by McConnell, Senate leader.

    Now that we’re a month of a presidential election, Whatever her name is is confirmed within 29 days of an election.

    What part do you not get. Hypocrisy, maybe?

    • Krishna says:

      And, my challenge to those in the Mitch McConnell ideology I add this: it’s hypocritical, ergo, and are you man enough to say you’re a hypocrite. Lol. Most don’t, and our cowards.

    • wyoming85 says:

      Mitch isn’t the only hypocrite!
      You can go back and see everyone of them flop on the subject!

      What part of that can’t you understand??????????????????????????????????

    • Tim Knight says:

      Calm down, Krishna. Geez! The conversation was all over the place about hypocrisy and just thought I’d ask how it started.

      My opinion about it is what Stanger said: “Power does what power does.” The side that has the majority has the power to push it through or block it. That’s how they’ve aways operated. I don’t lose sleep over it either way.

  38. The Flying Pig says:

    Tim

    I think the question posed to Biden has been if he will pack the court or expand it if he wins and has the power

    And winning and having the power means, the democrats have to keep the majority in the house, flip the senate, and Biden has to win

    So 3 things have to happen

    While there are polls that indicate those 3 things will happen, I don’t think anyone should assume it will happen

    The makeup of the scotus doesn’t affect whether Biden can do it or not. That’s why I am confused about your question.

    Expanding the court would need to pass the congress (like any other law) and then Biden can’t veto it

    Then Biden would get to nominate 2 (at least ) additions to the scotus to flip it from 6-5 (still conservative but probably not enough to lead to reversal on things like roe v wade) or 4 judges to go to 7-6

    It’s pretty unpopular to pack the court. I don’t think Biden supports it, but if some of those cases we mentioned before come into question…

    I didn’t work when for FDR in in the depresssion

    But if some of the right of privacy issues are affected by the current makeup, I can see it picking up steam

    I don’t think Biden currently supports it. But I do think of those 3 things fall into place, there will be a lot of momentum for it to happen

    I don’t blame him for being evasive In Answering it. It’s seems unlikely but if public opinion changes, then that my alter the likelihood

  39. The Flying Pig says:

    Tim Knight says:
    October 26, 2020 at 7:25 pm (Edit)
    Oh I thought the makeup of the branches of government are all in the Constitution?

    But I was referring to the question about expanding the Supreme Court. That’s what was asked of Biden last night on 60 Minutes.
    ****
    The nomination (bush the sitting president) and aprpoval by the senate is in the constitution

    Which is why the phrase “election ps have consequences” is correct

    But if the pendulum swings in 10 days, a lot of people are going to remember people who said that

    I’ve already cut and pasted in preparation….lol

    • Tim Knight says:

      That’s not how I heard it, Maybe Stanger can jump in because he mentioned it and that’s what lead me to posting about it.

      stangerx says:
      October 26, 2020 at 5:46 pm
      Don’t worry about it. It happened, even if was interesting to play back all the comments when Mitch blocked Garland. Power does what power does. But heck — some dems are talking about expanding the court.

      • The Flying Pig says:

        Think he meant that if the makeup of the court was 6-3 democratic appointees, it would be completely off the table

        It only becomes an option when the makeup changes to 6-3
        Which will happen if barret is confirmed (she will be)

        I’ve said it before and I will say it again
        5-4 is perfect and I prefer 5-4 conservative to 5-4 liberal

        But 6-3 conservative is a nightmare to me in theory
        In practice though, I don’t know that it’s going to be the issue people say it is

        It’s the threat of reversal on what of the big right of Privacy cases that will get people to raise an eyebrow….and that just may never happen

        I’m not sure, if those 3 things happen, it’s not just wiser for democrats to focus on legislation and leave the scotus alone

        When you can actually write the laws, you don’t have to worry about court interpretation

        Packing the court might be a little tit for tat for my taste p. It might not be a smart thing to do, even if power has shifted.

  40. The Flying Pig says:

    Mike E. says:
    October 26, 2020 at 6:57 pm (Edit)
    Possibly. Again, I voted for you know who but I don’t expect my life to change one bit.

    *****

    Mike

    I actually think it’s rare that an election has direct immediate consequences on a lot of us
    To me it’s more about picking a direction for the country
    I’ll adjust either way

  41. The Flying Pig says:

    Krishna

    For what it’s worth
    I think Tim is very open minded and will listen to your POV without being a jerk about it
    So it’s worth it to discuss these things with him and then hear his point of view as well

    Obviously, I don’t feel that way about everyone…

  42. Krishna says:

    Mike E, I would be grateful if you showed me the 25,000 lies Biden has told to the public v Trump since his election.

    Please…it’s not even close and reminds of grasping for straws.

    Not even fucking close!

  43. wyoming85 says:

    I don’t even know why I start????????

  44. CavalierKong says:

    If crazy means insane, and insanity is defined as abnormal perception, behavior, and interaction. Then if everybody is crazy, the only true crazies are the ones who are normal and sane.

    So stop being normal and sane you crazy fucks!

  45. Tim Knight says:

    Piggy, okay I just looked it up. I thought the Supreme Court was made up of 9. I see that’s not always the case. I didn’t know there was no set number. Obviously you lawyers know it better than me. So I learned something today. 🙂

    • The Flying Pig says:

      It’s traditionally made up of 9

      But that’s not in the constitution, it’s just something we settled on a long time ago. I don’t know the source

      FDR tried to change it and failed

      So theoretically it can happen now without violating the constitution – but it violates tradition

      20 years ago, it probably would not have been discussed

      It’s where we are now politically

  46. Krishna says:

    This is why I hate blogging/texting/email. I can’t be real without someone or anyone ascribing where i’m coming from in a genuine way.

    I have been a sarcastic laughing mother fucker these days, truth be told.

    I don’t need to calm down, I need to laugh.

    • The Flying Pig says:

      I can fart if that helps

      🐖💨

    • Tim Knight says:

      That’s not how comments like “What part do you not get. Hypocrisy, maybe?”

      That’s not a good way to communicate when all someone did was ask you a question about what we’re talking about? I think I’m pretty well known here for giving my opinion. LOL

      • Krishna says:

        You left out your first statement and start..
        “Calm down Krishna, Geez” is that how you start conversations or just those you oppose?

        Just a simple question.

        Seriously?

        I will LISTEN to.anyone.

  47. Tim Knight says:

    And for the record, Krishna, I never do this after an election. LOL

    • Krishna says:

      LMFAO…neither do I.

      I’m more of a ‘get what you pay for’ guy.

      • Tim Knight says:

        I’m a okay “the people have spoken” type of guy.

      • Krishna says:

        Yet, the people did not speak about this SCOTUS nomination. McConnell did.

      • Tim Knight says:

        I was talking about elections. I already said the majority side in power can push or hold up stuff. That is ultimately the people speaking as they vote for that.

        I may not agree with anyone on all issues, but I believe in the voice of the people over my own personal beliefs. It’s not all about me. I may totally disagree with the direction of the country, but I respect that others see it differently. I vote my principles. That’s it!

      • Krishna says:

        Me too Tim Knight. I vote for a candidate, not a party.

        Trump’s not a worthy candidate, in any way, imo, especially after the last 4 years.

        He does rallies and golfs. Stellar leadership!

  48. The Flying Pig says:

    Well she just got confirmed

    I thought they were voting tomorrow but it’s official she has been confirmed

    • Tim Knight says:

      You all said she would be approved. It was about a lot of political barking but it was always going to happen.

      • TOP SECRET says:

        hey, when the presidency AND the senate majority match., AND they have enough votes, it’s like clock work baby…….lol

  49. TOP SECRET says:

    ACB is approved 52-48 bitches………lol.

    • Krishna says:

      Did you put your name on the hypocrite list? Lol….probably not. So sad.

    • TOP SECRET says:

      not a coward, i just don’t give a fuck what any America hating liberal thinks, that’s all.

      • Krishna says:

        We are all one, TOP. Hate away.

      • TOP SECRET says:

        disagree, i wish ALL americans loved america, way too many pieces of shit want to tear the country down…..which is sad.

      • Krishna says:

        TOP, I will not back down to you. Liberals, and whatever I am, I challenge you to put your name on the hypocrite list. Seems you belong there based on your rhetoric.

        I won’t look back, but if you can’t or anyone on this blog can’t put their name on the hypocrite list, because they are a hypocrite, that’s for you to live with. Not me.

      • TOP SECRET says:

        look, i don’t give a fuck about you backing down or not, for that matter, what any liberal thinks, PERIOD.

  50. Krishna says:

    BE HERE NOW!

  51. wyoming85 says:

    Krishna, did you have a problem with Justice Barrett?

    Or just that the Republicans held the Presidency and the Senate?

    Honest question no digs!

    • stangerx says:

      Since you are a fan of what the party with the power can do….. you OK with the Dems expanding the court if they get the Senate and Oval office in this election? All legal.

      • wyoming85 says:

        As long as its an odd number.
        Why would it make a difference to me?

        It will just lengthen everything!

        You can answer that question above if you like?

      • Krishna says:

        Not a fan of power, at all. Do your fucking job, lol.

      • stangerx says:

        Garland should have gotten at least a hearing, Comey have no problem with (except what happened with Garland) and don’t want the Court expanded….. even if understand why some Dems are for it as payback.

    • Krishna says:

      Honestly, I could give a shit about the nomination, as it’s farcical, imo.

      I think I’ve been pretty clear what my opinion is, and your being obtuse if you don’t understand.

  52. TOP SECRET says:

    TRUMP won a 4 year term, NOT 3.5…….lol.

  53. TOP SECRET says:

    swamp creatures from both parties hate TRUMP……lol.

  54. wyoming85 says:

    Oh Stanger
    I’m a SMALL Government guy!

    I don’t want them to expand anything!

    And would really like them to get out of half the shit the are into that they shouldn’t be!!!!!!

    • stangerx says:

      I’m a small gov guy as well. But when it comes to the Supreme Court don’t think the number of justices matters much…. even if would like to keep at nine. Been there a few times — pretty cool place.

  55. TOP SECRET says:

    if obama wasn’t such a fucked up president, he would of had a majority senate (lost it in 2014) to get his lame duck nominee though the process….. too funny……lol.

    • The Flying Pig says:

      They actually didn’t even hold a vote

      They didn’t hold a vote bc mccconell knew Merrick Garland would “get through the process” even without a Republican majority

      So that majority you are puffing your chest out about was clearly going to turn their back on your logic

      McConnell didn’t allow the senators to vote. It wasn’t that the Republican senators voted against garland, it was that no one got to vote at all

      • TOP SECRET says:

        i see you missed the lame duck part….lol.

      • The Flying Pig says:

        I didn’t miss it

        It doesn’t make sense

        “Lame duck” doesn’t traditionally mean some one who will get enough votes if a vote happens….

        You don’t call some on who’s about to pass a “lame duck nominee” unless you are changing the meaning of lame to be the opposite of what it is

        Not holding a vote is moving the goalposts

        I want to shutout the jests 24-0
        I don’t want to remove the end zone to make that happen

        The senate and presidency don’t need to lineup up to hold a vote on a nominee
        It never had to in the past
        That’s a bad precedent to set

        It’s part of what has creat3d a problematic environment in Washington

        If you pull the pendulum all the way back, it will crash back. It always does

    • TOP SECRET says:

      dude was such a dick head, his ineptitude made TRUMP actually run for office…….lol.

  56. ocalarob says:

    you would have to be crazy to vote for a guy that will sell you out to the highest bidder, Biden is that guy.

  57. Krishna says:

    Oh god, here we go. I’m out.

  58. pheloniusphish says:

    Krishna says:
    October 26, 2020 at 5:54 pm
    Not worried at all….you of all people should know me.

    Only reason brought it up is beacause of pp’s comment if you don’t bring it up you’re in agreement. I brought it up, so to be sure, I don’t agree.
    =====================
    Which comment? I make so many…..

  59. TOP SECRET says:

    you know……. if those cheating liberal bastards don’t steal this election and TRUMP wins fair and square……. this whole point of supreme court discussion will be moot…..lol.

  60. ocalarob says:

    Rams look pretty good

  61. ocalarob says:

    Goff has been inaccurate

  62. ocalarob says:

    Aaron Donalds a beast, we better double team him, what a test for Tua’s first game!

  63. ocalarob says:

    The sad part about the lefts position on the supreme ct is that they think ACB would rule in favor of her beliefs instead of the law. i doubt that would ever happen,
    in fact i think just the reverse.
    The left is making this stink so they can justify packing the court if the corrupt politician wins.

    that would be a communistic decision.

    • The Flying Pig says:

      Communist don’t have separation of powers much less a powerful Supreme Court to undermine the executive branch

      I think when you guys talk about this stuff you really oversimplify the law

      Barrett is an originalist
      She no less likely to engage judicial activism than a liberal judge bc of it

      “The goal of originalism is really just to argue that the constitutional rule that’s embodied in the constitution should be understood in the way that it was understood by those who adopted it in the first place, and that courts ought to be constrained by that understanding when it’s possible to determine what that understanding is,”

      An originalist judge interprets the law, they just use a different method
      they try to interpret it to be what the people who drafted it meant the words to be

      She actually went in great depth about this at her hearings
      It doesn’t necessarily fall left or right on particular issues

      But it does come head to head with the right to privacy line of cases

      Bottom line is, as a judge, she is trying to guess what some one was thinking

      There is a healthy skepticism of judges ability to infer intent by originalists who are also textualists but it doesn’t mean interpretation doesn’t happen

      it’s hard to try to interpret what the drafter of a law meant without inferring something
      That’s just human

  64. Tim Knight says:

    This is a good game to watch tonight. The Rams are our next opponent and Tua’s first start. You know our coaches are watching.

  65. ocalarob says:

    this broadcaster just said the last time the Rams won a championship was 1951.

    what happened to kurt warner and marshall faulk beating the titans in the superbowl, i think it was 2000.

  66. pheloniusphish says:

    I don’t think Barrett is any particular danger to precedent like Roe vs. Wade. I think she is likely to rule in the most conservative manner in things like 2nd Amendment issues. Everything else is theatrics and noise.

    • The Flying Pig says:

      I think she’s a direct threat to roe v wade

      It’s not bc of her bel ifs
      It’s bc of her originalism advocacy

      The line of cases originlist always attack are anything that mention a right to privacy
      That’s roe v wade, griswold and obergefell

      The solution though (for some one like me who values those decisions) isn’t to reshape the court, it’s to actually draft legalization that preserves the right of privacy

      An originalist won’t overturn anything if the legislation specifically states a “right to Privacy

  67. The Flying Pig says:

    Did Chris Berman dye his hair for Halloween?

  68. ocalarob says:

    The Flying Pig says:
    October 26, 2020 at 9:25 pm
    Barrett is an originalist
    She no less likely to engage judicial activism than a liberal judge bc of it
    ________________________________________________

    that should not be a consideration for either side, the fact that the left brings that issue up is scary
    No judge should go beyond the applicable law to consider its decisions;
    That’s what ACB has been saying all a long.

  69. Tim Knight says:

    Piggy, I appreciate your voice on law and bi-partisan views.

  70. ocalarob says:

    law should not be ambiguous, it should be cut & dry.

    • The Flying Pig says:

      But it’s not

      Especially when it’s old

      It’s not easy to know what was meant when something was written 200 years ago

      Originalism just means the judge guesses what was meant when it was drafted
      But it concedes that the law is not cut and dry
      She’s just trying to apply method to her interpretation

      Which is pretty interesting (I love the the idea of it)

      But personally I think it’s usually full of holes

  71. pheloniusphish says:

    Piggy – Did she not say that griswold and obergefell was establish law and that established law should not be revisited except when something significantly changed?

    • The Flying Pig says:

      She did say it was established precedent

      But then she explained stare decisis and one of the factors
      “whether the precedent has produced a substantial reliance interest that prevents the court from”

      As a basis to put some people at ease in either roe c wade would be reversed

      That is actually one of three factors
      All three are
      “First, whether the court is deciding a constitutional or statutory case; second, whether the underlying decision is inconsistent with justice or the social welfare; and third, whether the precedent has produced a substantial reliance interest that prevents the court from”

      So it’s not easy to reverse established precedent

      But makes no mistake about it
      Those cases hang on a thread

      Bc those cases find a right of privacy in the 14th amendment (that’s oversimplifying)
      And she’s made it clear, she doesn’t think the constitution says that

  72. pheloniusphish says:

    Personally, I prefer a Court that does not legislate from the bench.

    • The Flying Pig says:

      I do too
      Especially for my work

      But they all have to interpret something
      It’s not realistic to expect the law to cover everything that may occur

      We are lucky in that are constitution is so old we have these issues

      I just read that Chile is trying to create a new constitution
      And there’s is only from 1980

      We have a unique problem

      We have one of the oldest constitutions in the world
      Even the country we borrow everything from (uk) has been adding and adding and adding documents (they don’t have one constitution)

      So we are a victim of our own success

      We have a old constitution

      People have to think about what it meant to be able to apply it

      And that’s a guessing game at every level

  73. Randy says:

    Holy fuck. Folks know Trump has already appointed something like 200 judges, right? The damage has been done. The Dems are keeping the pack the court thing going just to fuck with the Republicans and give them think about. But, this President has already set the precedent of dismissing tradition and grinding it into the ground with his boot heel. So, why should the Dems not do the same when it comes to keeping the option of packing the court on the table? Ya can’t have it bother ways. If you’re willing to throw away tradition and the established norms…then don’t be surprised when the other side does the same thing. At least the Dems are showing some balls…something everyone accuses them of never doing. Mud wrestling!!!!! Lol

    • The Flying Pig says:

      Well that’s one way to go about it

      Another way is to actually pass laws that don’t give judges any wiggle room

      If the dems flip the senate, the senate floor is going to open up like flood gates
      So much stuff is waiting for a vote

    • Tim Knight says:

      “But, this President has already set the precedent of dismissing tradition and grinding it into the ground with his boot heel.”

      Really… tradition? Like what?

      Just so you know, I’d ask the same question if someone called Biden out about something I thought was questionable.

      This country is in a fucked up Hatfield/McCoy type situation.

    • pheloniusphish says:

      You say damage done, we say wrongs righted.

  74. Randy says:

    Piggy,
    I’m not saying I support it or like it. I’m just saying I get why the Dems feel okay about holding it over their heads a little and are playing a little hardball. After they suffered thru Obama being shut down, Trump then appointing hundreds of judges and then the Republicans push thru a SC justice, my guess is they have no problem with not taking it off the table. Whether or not they’d follow thru is a whole other issue. I’m not convinced they would but why not let it hang out there? And, lifetime appointments are just ridiculous and antiquated, to me.

  75. Randy says:

    Piggy,
    Do you think a major change in our laws could be done? It seems like that would be a major undertaking. Is it even doable? Plus, this Country can’t even develop adequate universal health care like about 30-40 other Countries have done, I think…..because the special interest groups won’t let it happen and pay our politicians to make sure it never happens. I don’t see how we could revamp our laws in any meaningful or comprehensive way.

    • steveccnv says:

      Don’t you understand how expensive it is for the govt to do anything? There’s so much bureaucracy, that it costs at least double, and that’s before the corruption comes into play from both sides.

      Universal health sucks everywhere it’s been put in, and taxes on the middle class would go through the roof, and then some once the illegals get covered, well they’re already covered, so…

  76. steveccnv says:

    If football is a game of inches, why doesn’t anyone challenge the ball placement manipulation?

    It happens in 2 places, by the side judge spotting the ball and by the center.

    In the first half the Rams challenged a catch that was marked a first down. The call was overturned, but it clearly showed the ball should’ve been spotted with the back of the ball on the mark 1 yard short. It was actually spotted a ball length short.

    The center then moves the ball forward past the first down marker, but a false start nullified it all. The point was between the bad ref spot, then the center moving the ball, the Bears actually gained 2/3 of a yard and what would’ve been a first down without gaining anything.

    Both of these happen all the time.

    Between the cheats center moving the ball forward constantly and the ref spotting the ball in their favor on Sunday, they only needed 8.5 yards on average for a first down, and they still couldn’t move the ball.

  77. Randy says:

    Tim,
    Many ways. He withheld funds that had been approved without even notifying the proper channels or giving a reason for it. In fact, he broke the law to do it, but nobody cares about that. He refused to release his taxes. He refused to cooperate with an impeachment proceeding and, in fact, did everything he could to subvert it. He is right now forcing a SC justice thru when his party refused to allow Obama to do it with about 8 months left. He has used the AG to further his own personal and political agenda. Stuff other Presidents haven’t done. There are plenty others.

    • Tim Knight says:

      So politics! 😉

    • steveccnv says:

      Withheld funds, right. Those same funds that the Ukraines didn’t know were being withheld.

      Really, the fake impeachment based on law being broken, but Biden admits on tape of doing a quid pro quo and nothing happens.

      There’s no law that says he has to show his taxes and I wouldn’t either, if I were him, because they’d make up so much fake shit about it like they do with everything.

      • steveccnv says:

        The SC pushed through quick, but when the Senate and president are of the same party it goes thru in an election year, and not when not.

        Used the AG, give me a break! Someone has to hold these criminals on the left accountable, the media won’t. The SOS was given the Hunter Biden Ukraine story when Obama was president they swept it under the rug. The AG under him and Comey didn’t charge hilllary for her email scandal or what she was doing selling influence.

  78. Tim Knight says:

    The Rams look good tonight. I look forward to seeing our team match up against them on Sunday. 🙂

  79. Randy says:

    Phish,
    It’s really no different than packing the SC, so I’m not sure why Republican supporters have a problem with the Dems doing what Trump has already done. We’ve become a system where the bully wins now, so let the shit fly.

  80. Randy says:

    Tim,
    The question was about traditions or how Presidents have acted for Centuries. It may not be law or required, but it’s tradition. Trump has thrown those all away, so the Dems probably feel they can too….such as packing the Court. There is no reason either side, when in control, couldn’t do it….except for tradition. Trump says fuck tradition any time it doesn’t favor him. That was the point.

  81. The Flying Pig says:

    Randy says:
    October 26, 2020 at 10:22 pm (Edit)
    Piggy,
    Do you think a major change in our laws could be done? It seems like that would be a major undertaking. Is it even doable? Plus, this Country can’t even develop adequate universal health care like about 30-40 other Countries have done, I think…..because the special interest groups won’t let it happen and pay our politicians to make sure it never happens. I don’t see how we could revamp our laws in any meaningful or comprehensive way.

    *****
    I don’t think M4A is going to pass anytime soon
    I think a public option might happen

    It’s. It exactly an overhaul
    But I think it’s gets the US to about 97% coverage as opposed to where we are which is like 90%

    A lot of the people running right now are making health care a major part of their platform
    So special interest groups aside, if you run in that – you better at least try to deliver if you win

  82. Randy says:

    All I’m saying is that if Trump can thumb his nose at tradition and how things are typically done whenever it suits him….right or wrong….don’t get your panties in a wad when the Dems do it. We get what we deserve…and these are the politicians we have.

  83. Randy says:

    Piggy,
    Thanks for that input, but I was wondering about our set of laws, in general. You suggested passing laws that aren’t ambiguous so judges don’t have as much to interpret or read into things. Do you think that is possible in any meaningful way?

    • The Flying Pig says:

      Specifically instead of depending on roe v wade to not be overturned
      Create a “right to privacy” by federal law
      Even a constituional amendment (that’s an uphill climb)

      Roe v wade reads like a pathway to being codified
      Instead it ended up being the most controversial case in our history
      It’s almost 50 years old now

      I’m specifIcally talking about federal protections for the rights in roe v wade, or the right to marriage (gay marriage) or the right to birth control (griswold)

      Federal legislation on very specific issues instead of hoping the 14th amendment and 5th are Interpreted to preserve these cases

      • The Flying Pig says:

        A Good example is the civil rights act of 1964
        Prior to that act, a lot of people looked to the 14th amendment and it’s interpretation to protect from racial discrimination

        But the civil right acts makes a lot of discrimination illegal even if the 14th amendment does not

        You don’t need to lean on roe v wade if there a a federal protection for a “right to privacy”

        It doesn’t matter how the scouts feels about it

  84. steveccnv says:

    What packing the court comes down to is using it as a political weapon. The left SC judges already go against what they were sworn in to do, uphold the Constitution.

  85. steveccnv says:

    Curious, why do you guys back a party that wants to raise your taxes to over 50%?

    If the answer is they’re only going to do it for those that make over 400K, that’s a lie Biden tells.

    • The Flying Pig says:

      He’s literally has no policies that raise taxes other than those making 400k +

      Sometimes I wonder if you guys know anything about the guy you are running against. He’s not a socialist. He doesn’t support Medicare for all, he’s actually not very popular among the left

      • New Age says:

        He wants to end the tax cuts which ends up literally raising my taxes.

      • The Flying Pig says:

        Oh come on ….that’s silly

        The average American received less than $700 from those tax cuts while the top 1% received $50,000

        We can figure out another way to get Americans the value of that $700….lol

      • The Flying Pig says:

        I mean,it’s accurate
        But when you spell it out, it’s not exactly the “raising your taxes” it implies it is

      • The Flying Pig says:

        Certainly not raising anyone’s taxes by 50%

      • steveccnv says:

        You’re just throwing numbers against the wall, $1800 is what the average middle class person is what Biden would be eliminating.

        In the dem primary debate everyone raised their hand, when asked about wanting Medicare for all. Biden also said in the recent debate he wants Biden care, which would have a public option and it would phase out private insurance. Biden won’t last 2 years, Kamala is far left.

        I won’t insult your intelligence, I know you know where the corrupt joe stands on everything, like gun control…

      • steveccnv says:

        That Medicare for all will increase the taxes over 50%. Joe says, the same lie Obama told, if you want to keep your dr…

      • The Flying Pig says:

        I’m not throwing numbers out there. Here’s where I got it from
        https://americansfortaxfairness.org/promise-will-middle-class-tax-cut/
        Even if it’s 1800 that’s not 50% of my taxes

        He doesnt support m4a
        He never has (that’s not what they raise their hands about)
        Most of the democratic debates were him and Bernie Sanders disagreeing on this and it’s not subtle that they are both very different on this

        And it won’t raise your taxes by 50% anyway

        The public option doesn’t phase out private insurance either

        I remember when people told me that the aca would raise my taxes by 50% and kill private insurance and that never happened…we were supposed to get death panels too…lol

        I prefer m4a to the public option anyway
        So none of these arguments work on me anyway

        But I swear, you guys just don’t know who you are running against

      • steveccnv says:

        Not raising taxes 50%, raising your margin rate to over 50%. Maybe they won’t, but are you willing to take the chance of where they’re leading us, and that surely is over 50%.

        Obama care was passed to fail, when hilllary got in she was supposed to be the savior that fixed ACA and put thru Medicare for all. Now the party is run by the radical side.

      • steveccnv says:

        Maybe you’re right we don’t know who we’re running against. It sure would be nice, if he didn’t play both sides of every policy.

        I kid, I know exactly who Biden is, but he’s not even close to the biggest threat, its everyone else that’s puppeting him, and he likely won’t go 4 years, so Kamala will be executive orderng us to death radically.

  86. Tim Knight says:

    Okay… we agree on some things and not on others. As far as politicians go and Trump is one now, I don’t hold them in high regard.

    I’m more interested in Dolphins/Rams Sunday with Tua’s first start. 🙂

  87. Randy says:

    steve,
    I can save you some time. I don’t care what happened with Biden and the Russians. I haven’t seen a shred of evidence that Biden did anything to put this nation at risk or harm us to benefit himself in any way. Did he try to use his political connections to make money for his family? That’s quite possible, but I haven’t seen any proof of that either. None of these allegations of wrongdoing by Trump have been substantiated by any credible source.
    ***
    But even if he did, how does that make him any different than every single other politician alive? Are you suggesting he’s the only politician making money off of his political status and connections? If someone has proof he did something to harm the Country to benefit himself, let me know, and I would certainly change my mind.

  88. manitobafinfan says:

    Steve: re ball placement .. Over the last few years I am very surprised that with all the tech in the world that they have not figured out how to put a chip in the ball that would not disrupt its integrity , yet would allow for “true “ tracking .. between a chip in the ball and some sort of grid on the sidelines I think would be a great add on …

    • steveccnv says:

      In the Ukraine there’s the video where he says he did a quid pro quo and bragged about it.

      In China the billion that went to hunters company he had no experience in.

      The evidence for other corruption is on the hard drive, that the FBI covered up. His business partner was a witness to the corruption. If all of this wasn’t real why don’t they deny it? Why did hunters lawyer ask for the hard drive back. What was hunter doing in China anyways, if it wasn’t to deal with the chinese?

      There’s no evidence on Trump, but you believe that and overwhelming evidence against the bidens, but you don’t believe it.

      Why do the dems always try to throw out there a source that won’t come forward? Because it’s a lie.

      • steveccnv says:

        Wrong spot, one above.

        The chip in the ball can be done, but they like the control of manipulating the game. It’s why they got rid of PI review.

  89. CavalierKong says:

    Geez, Hekker is amazing. A 63 yd punt with no return to pin the Bears inside the 10? Are you kidding me?

  90. The Flying Pig says:

    If Tua throws anything like what adolescences just threw I’ll be on board drafting another QB in 2021

  91. CavalierKong says:

    Rams are going to knock us down to 3rd in the league in Opponents PPG.

  92. manitobafinfan says:

    If we can keep Donald off Tua , and win the TO counts …

    🇨🇦24-20 🐬

  93. CavalierKong says:

    🇨🇦24-20 🐬
    🐷 20-14 🐬
    🦍 22-19 🐬

  94. steveccnv says:

    Rams have to travel across the country on a short week, we’re off of a bye, but are starting a rookie QB. We should win this game with Fitz, but with it being Tua’s first game no telling.

  95. ocalarob says:

    Randy says:
    October 26, 2020 at 10:54 pm
    steve,
    I can save you some time. I don’t care what happened with Biden and the Russians. I haven’t seen a shred of evidence that Biden did anything to put this nation at risk or harm us to benefit himself in any way. Did he try to use his political connections to make money for his family? That’s quite possible, but I haven’t seen any proof of that either. None of these allegations of wrongdoing by Trump have been substantiated by any credible source.
    ***
    ________________________________________________

    Sorry to say this Randy I like you as a poster around here but this has to be the most dumbest leftist socialist post. i have seen.
    if you think he used his vice presidency for personal gain and seems like you think that’s OK?

    not only is it not OK it’s what they tried to impeach Trump on and had there been evidence like they have on Biden they would have gotten away with it.

    not to mention how you were appalled at how they were not able to impeach trump over that same issue yet you are very willing to excuse biden, it is very obvious that is very hypocritical and hard left wing socialist bias.
    i guess if anything serves your purpose it’s OK, and if it doesn’t it’s not.

    you don’t seem to be worried about what’s right and what’s wrong.

    your views may take your freedom from you one day.

    if Biden used his political status for personal gain he should go to jail.

    i’m most certain he did and there seems to be proof of it

    • steveccnv says:

      He should go to prison for treason, for what he allowed China to get away with, but then you could say the same thing for every other WH before him going back to Carter.

  96. ocalarob says:

    another thing about the fires in calif,
    i heard years ago that those fires are part of natures way to clear the land, fire is natures cleanser.
    now with the advances in mankind how they can attack these fires from the sky and put them out, what happens is they leave unburned brush behind.
    over years and years of putting out fires leaving this brush, it builds up and the fires get incredibly bad.
    that;s the reason for the fires not climate change as the left would have you to believe

    • steveccnv says:

      ^

      And that shit is blowing over here. I should sue CA for the dirty air.

      If we get rid of fossil fuels like Biden said, the rest of the country would have the weeks of no power like CA.

  97. ocalarob says:

    steveccnv says:
    October 26, 2020 at 11:48 pm
    In the Ukraine there’s the video where he says he did a quid pro quo and bragged about it.

    In China the billion that went to hunters company he had no experience in.

    The evidence for other corruption is on the hard drive, that the FBI covered up. His business partner was a witness to the corruption. If all of this wasn’t real why don’t they deny it? Why did hunters lawyer ask for the hard drive back. What was hunter doing in China anyways, if it wasn’t to deal with the chinese?

    There’s no evidence on Trump, but you believe that and overwhelming evidence against the bidens, but you don’t believe it.

    Why do the dems always try to throw out there a source that won’t come forward? Because it’s a lie.
    ________________________________________________________

    There are some leftwing corrupt mother fuckers on this board, you’re wasting your time.
    nothing pisses me off more than a liar and a cheat, i want to fck’n ring their neck.

    i don’t mind if you want to vote for the dems but don’t sit there and dispute something that’s overwhelming and jump all over something that has no merit.

    Steve they know what’s up and all the corruption going on and yet refuse to acknowledge it.

    a bunch of fkn lying pussies

  98. ocalarob says:

    Randy, youre a fuck’n pussy!

  99. ocalarob says:

    Krishna, you’re a fuck’n pussy,

  100. Randy says:

    ORob,
    Pussy? Me? Huh. All these years and I never knew. Thanks for clearing that up for me!

  101. CavalierKong says:

    AGH, how could you be this dumb? You’re on the practice squad, not a starter.

    https://larrybrownsports.com/football/josh-hawkins-released-panthers-restaurant-mask/566569

  102. CavalierKong says:

    I know it doesn’t mean anything, but I still enjoy this stuff. This site has us ranked 12th, which is easily the highest I’ve seen for us. That is freakin’ awesome.

    If we beat the Rams this weekend with Tua at the helm, we’re going to be the talk of the league. Man it would be nice if this team keeps meeting the expectations we fans are starting to feel. We’ve been disappointed so many times in the last two decades. Let’s get this thing started.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nfl-power-rankings-entering-week-8/ss-BB1ao38D?li=BB15ms5q#image=22

  103. CavalierKong says:

    4 YDS! LOL!

    • steveccnv says:

      With the cheats at 2-4 its bitter sweet, when they lose a player. We need them to beat Buffalo once, if we’re going to have much of a chance to win the division, but I won’t count them out until they are out, strange things happen in NE.

  104. ocalarob says:

    Randy, you told me the other day that you wanted to bury trump in the impeachment trials and your party had no evidence at all other than a phone call that was proven there was nothing wrong with it, you wanted to crucify Trump for that.

    the DOJ has overwhelming evidence that Joe Biden sold us out to China, Ukraine and Russia and in your own words you said it was “quite possible”

    so let me get this straight, Trump has a phone call with Ukraine and you want to hang the man.

    We have great evidence, Hunters hard drive and a whistle blower that Biden sold us out to China, Russia and Ukraine, and you say it’s quite possible yet there’s really nothing wrong with it! no big deal?

    how hypocritical of you?

    If Trump did what they accused him of which he didn’t, it would pale in comparison to what Biden has been accused of.

    If Biden took money from china you can bet he had to give them something, the question is what did he give them? and if he is president will he still be on Chinas payroll.

    if Biden did what they say he did he should be shot for treason!

  105. ocalarob says:

    Republican House Rep. Jim Jordan claimed his staff has independently authenticated materials from a laptop allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden
    Jordan also slammed Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden for failing to speak out on whether the emails, photos, and other contents were genuine
    Tony Bobulinski, a former business partner of Hunter who was listed as the recipient of an email published by the New York Post also said they were real
    ‘Why won’t Joe Biden say they are not real, if they are not accurate, if these aren’t accurate emails, why won’t the Bidens say so?’ Jordan asked
    The emails are under FBI investigation but have not been officially verified

  106. pheloniusphish says:

    Howie’s List

    🇨🇦24-20 🐬
    🐷 20-14 🐬
    🦍 22-19 🐬
    🐟 35-14 🐬

  107. wyoming85 says:

    Howie’s List

    🇨🇦24-20 🐬
    🐷 20-14 🐬
    🦍 22-19 🐬
    🐟 35-14 🐬
    🐎 21-20 🐬

  108. wyoming85 says:

    Howie’s List

    🇨🇦24-20 🐬
    🐷 20-14 🐬
    🦍 22-19 🐬
    🐟 35-14 🐬
    🤠 21-20 🐬

    I like that one better!

  109. herdfan says:

    Howie’s List

    🇨🇦24-20 🐬
    🐷 20-14 🐬
    🦍 22-19 🐬
    🐟 35-14 🐬
    🤠 21-20 🐬
    🐃🐃 27-24🐬

  110. steveccnv says:

    Howie’s List

    🇨🇦24-20 🐬
    🐷 20-14 🐬
    🦍 22-19 🐬
    🐟 35-14 🐬
    🤠 21-20 🐬
    🎲 27-21 🐬

  111. wyoming85 says:

  112. steveccnv says:

    Howie’s List

    🇨🇦24-20 🐬
    🐷 20-14 🐬
    🦍 22-19 🐬
    🐟 35-14 🐬
    🤠 21-20 🐬
    🐃🐃 27-24🐬
    🎲 27-21 🐬

  113. D says:

    D says:
    October 27, 2020 at 10:05 am

    If you cant establish normal, you cant establish crazy so etiehr everyone is a variation of crazy, or they are a variation of normal.

    • steveccnv says:

      So we just are what we are?

      The new normal is whatever the accepted behavior is, in other words whatever they tell us it should be. Anyone have a problem with them telling us what normal is?

      • D says:

        steveccnv says:
        October 27, 2020 at 10:16 am

        So we just are what we are?

        The new normal is whatever the accepted behavior is, in other words whatever they tell us it should be. Anyone have a problem with them telling us what normal is?
        —————————————————————————————–
        I especially have a problem with them telling us what normal is because that is very hypocritical.

  114. wyoming85 says:

    ????????????????

    • steveccnv says:

      No thanks, we’ve been down this road before. We need to draft someone, not pay 15M for him.

    • bailbondmike says:

      Are you kidding? I would do it in a heart beat! He would be on a bargain and not cost that much.

      “When a team trades for a player, it becomes responsible for paying the player’s remaining salary and remaining bonuses if there are any. The player’s signing bonus proration remains with his old team.”

      His base salary is 2020 $675,000, 2021 $850,000, and 2022 $965,000.
      His roster bonus 2020 $1,388,608, 2021 $2,777,216, and 2022 $4,165,823.

      If I understand correctly, the above is all we would have to pay him and the Jets would be on the hook for the signing bonuses of 2020 $5,419,431, 2021 $5,419,431, and 2022 $5,419,431.

      If this is correct, what do you give for him? The Houston pick in round 2 or our pick in round 1. I would not give up the Houston pick in the 1st round.

  115. ocalarob says:

    who the hell is George?

    • steveccnv says:

      He’s the biggest idiot on the planet, well 2nd, next to the Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono.

      He keeps pushing all this BS narrative, including on covid how he’s going to snap his fingers and cure it. I’d make people wear masks he says, well in Italy where they’re locked down and wearing a mask is mandatory they’re getting a spike. The only cure is a vaccine, and the only way to slow it is control the deaths, which we are and masks in tight quarters, which we also are doing. FN lying dems, pushing their BS.

  116. CavalierKong says:

    I woke up expecting to read some juicy stuff, but all I got is Steve calling Wyo his cowgirl. How disappointing… 😉

  117. ocalarob says:

    i am starting to feel bad for Biden, he has severe dementia and it just seems he’s being used
    , when he said George you could see his wife whispering Trump to him.
    very pathetic.
    if that was my family member with that sort of problem i would not want him exposed to all this crap.

    • steveccnv says:

      His wife doesn’t give a crap, nor should she with all the touchy feely he’s done over the years, it’s her revenge. She just wants to be 1st lady.

      All the top dems are using poor little old dementia laden corrupt joe.

    • stangerx says:

      You ever been around someone with severe dementia? My Mom had it. For all I know he could be in early stage dementia like Reagan was in his last few years, but if Joe has it not severe at all.

  118. CavalierKong says:

    I think Tim mentioned it, but I haven’t seen much on the board about it. That play by Metcalf the other night was unbelievable. One of the greatest hustle plays I’ve ever seen.

    • steveccnv says:

      I saw it this morning, and it’s a great play by Metcalf. My problem is with the rest of the slackers going thru the motions.

      How can these overpaid guys put out such little effort? They don’t care enough about winning.

      I had a similar play in 8th grade, coming from the DL. At halftime the coach chewed out the rest of the D.

      Playing basketball I was always the one getting back on fast break D, mostly by myself. I ran my ass off sometimes, because I hated to lose.

  119. Mike E. says:

    The Jets keep drafting 1st RD DL and trading them. What’s the formula there?

  120. D says:

    D says:
    October 27, 2020 at 11:55 am

    steveccnv says:
    October 27, 2020 at 10:16 am

    So we just are what we are?

    The new normal is whatever the accepted behavior is, in other words whatever they tell us it should be. Anyone have a problem with them telling us what normal is?
    —————————————————————————————–
    I especially have a problem with them telling us what normal is because that is very hypocritical.

  121. stangerx says:

    Election day is one week from today and 66 million votes have already been cast. That’s half the total vote count for 2016. People are real interested in this one. The under 30 turnout has been huge, which is real unusual.

  122. D says:

    CavalierKong says:
    October 27, 2020 at 11:36 am

    I think Tim mentioned it, but I haven’t seen much on the board about it. That play by Metcalf the other night was unbelievable. One of the greatest hustle plays I’ve ever seen.
    —————————————————————
    It was and maybe im jaded because i played the game, but any play i was on the field i played it out 100%. If it meant my 4.98 40 slow ass was going to trail the guy by 10 yards when he crossed the line, i didn’t let off until he did. The play wasnt over. In this NFL you see a lot of guys give up on plays when its away fromt hem, or give up on plays when they have no rpole in the design, but thats just bullshit. To me what Metcalf did was play football. I dont think its remarkable personally, in the sense that is how you play in my opinion, its only remarkable in the world of soft ass players who dont wanna play the game like that.

    • CavalierKong says:

      It’s remarkable because only a couple guys in the league MIGHT have been able to make that play. For him to recognize and react as fast as he did, coupled with the speed to run the guy down, and the endurance to keep that speed up for 115 yards. One of the greatest plays of the year, easy.

      • steveccnv says:

        There were several others much closer, they just didn’t give a shit. I see the same thing in the WS with guys not running it out to 1st base, like in BB you need to conserve energy.

    • steveccnv says:

      Here 🍺

    • steveccnv says:

      Watching film on OV, after we drafted him, I saw this same type of hustle and the angles he took, so I was excited we drafted him.

  123. D says:

    Well yes, athletically he is a pure specimen, and that was known when they came to the draft and yet someone still was able to talk him down to a much lower pick than i expected. I really wanted him for us, if you remember. Its true, not many could pull it off, but i stand by the fact that a lot could and just dont put for the effort to go full out. There are a few players, like Watt (and mostly why i mentioned possibly getting him if the Texans fire sale) who embody that effort. Watt would have been chasing all the way as well and had he had the athletic ability that Metcalf has, he would have caught him too, its the mentality to push on that play that makes that possible, the athletics is just the mechanism that allowed him to get there before he crossed the goal line.

    • steveccnv says:

      ^
      Also, if you watched the interceptor, he was shocked Metcalf caught him. He wasn’t exactly running full speed. Another slacker on the play.

      Don Beebe in the SB also comes to mind, I think it was Leon Lett that ran it to the goal line, before Don knocked it out. Not exactly full effort by Leon.

  124. steveccnv says:

    Say what you want about Pete Rose aka Charlie Hustle, I do (talked to him a couple of times), but…

    • stangerx says:

      What did you think of Charlie Hustle? Went to one of his eating places (the first one) when was a young kid. My Uncle bought me a signed Pete Rose ball in the gift shop for $5. $5……. wish my dog hadn’t eaten it.

      • steveccnv says:

        The ball player, my dad always pointed out his hustle, I’m sure it had some affect on me, but not liking the Reds I always respected him and his play.

        The person, I thought he was an asshole. I’ve mentioned this before on here, but…I was dealing cards in Tahoe, and was relief one night (20 minutes per 3 tables). I pushed into the table he was playing at by himself, thinking how great it was going to be to deal to him, then broken record sound, he says, I don’tthink so and left, like I was a shark and they moved me there to take his money. They do do stuff like that, but not this time.

        The other 2 times was at Ceasar’s Palace at the forum shops, he was signing autographs, but no one wanted to pay. He was talking to the shop owner, he was pissed no one cared about him enough to get one. He was wearing all white one time, like he was IT. I so wanted to walk up to him like I wanted an autograph, then say oh its Pete Rose, I don’t think so.

      • stangerx says:

        Sorta of ironic that you met Rose when he was gambling, or maybe just expected. We all know how he got banned from baseball.

        And I’m guessing he was pissed no one wanted to pay the price for his signature cause he had signed a whole lot. No matter who you are that makes the price go down, especially since the internet has come in. A whole lot of your stuff on the net and your price goes down. Supply and demand.

        Cool that you were a dealer. Sat at many a table.

  125. bailbondmike says:

    My response on Quinnen Williams got lost in the politics. LOL Here it is again:

    Are you kidding? I would do it in a heart beat! He would be on a bargain and not cost that much.

    “When a team trades for a player, it becomes responsible for paying the player’s remaining salary and remaining bonuses if there are any. The player’s signing bonus proration remains with his old team.”

    His base salary is 2020 $675,000, 2021 $850,000, and 2022 $965,000.
    His roster bonus 2020 $1,388,608, 2021 $2,777,216, and 2022 $4,165,823.

    If I understand correctly, the above is all we would have to pay him and the Jets would be on the hook for the signing bonuses of 2020 $5,419,431, 2021 $5,419,431, and 2022 $5,419,431.

    If this is correct, what do you give for him? The Houston pick in round 2 or our pick in round 1. I would not give up the Houston pick in the 1st round.

    Only bad thing about the contract is I think it might be fully guaranteed (not sure).

    What you think?

    • stangerx says:

      Contract would not be a problem at all. What the Jets want or other teams offer might be. Worth kicking the tires at least.

    • steveccnv says:

      We’d have to take over the contract, so any unpaid signing bonuses we’d pay unless something was worked into the trade. Rookie contracts are guaranteed, but not a problem.

  126. Mike E. says:

    Metcalf more than made up for his Leon Lett earlier in the season. Still haven’t seen the play yet though.

    • CavalierKong says:

      Mike, forget all the players, coaches, and basically everyone who thinks this is an amazing play, Steve and D aren’t impressed. I’m betting Omar isn’t either, lol.

      It was even more impressive to watch it live in the tension of the game itself..

      • steveccnv says:

        I thought it was a good hustle play, but I’m not going all goo goo over someone doing their job. Anyone remember the training camp wall last year it takes no talent…

      • CavalierKong says:

        Steve, that is the point I’m trying to get through your noggin. It wasn’t just a hustle play. It was a hustle play that took tremendous talent to achieve a result. 99.9% of guys who hustle and give it there all on that play are just running it out, but would never catch Baker.

      • steveccnv says:

        I don’t see speed as talent. A great play would be OBJ making a 2 finger catch over a CB. A play that he can make maybe 1 out of 5 times.

        Speed on the other hand would be like saying Usain Bolt stumbled at the start, but still won the 100M, something that would happen 5 out of 5 times.

        Just my opinion.

      • CavalierKong says:

        You don’t see speed as a talent? It’s quite literally the definition of a talent. But I think I get what you are trying to say, so I’ll let it go. We’ve spent way more time on this than I expected. I was just extolling a good play, I didn’t realize I’d have to argue or defend the scale of the play itself, lol. We can just disagree.

        Cheers 🙂

  127. CavalierKong says:

    Tremendously athletic play, 22.6 MPH, 115 yds total, behind the play 25 yds at the start, saves 7 points, and all you can do is diminish it from your couches. LOL, you guys are unreal, but carry on. 🙂

    • D says:

      Im not diminishing it lol, i just expect that kind of hustle, and TBH thats the most impressive part of it to me was that he did go full out from being 25 years back, im not arguing the play, just the impressive part, and the rest is just commentary on the lack of that in the NFL these days.

      • D says:

        I couldn’t even have done it “in my younger days” as the old folks like to say lol, so im definately not poo pooing on the ability and impressive fact that he did catch him.

    • steveccnv says:

      Lol at 25 yards behind the play.

      • CavalierKong says:

        The numbers say he ran 109 yds to make the tackle, not 115, and Baker ran a straight line and ran 90, so he was actually only 19 yds behind the play.

      • steveccnv says:

        I saw 7 plus over about 5 yards, but they will always sensationalize.

      • CavalierKong says:

        It’s charted, just like the speed. They aren’t guessing, lol. The angle he took, he covered 108.76 yds.

  128. herdfan says:

    There’s crazy…..and then there’s this kind of crazy.

  129. D says:

    Im not sure Gase really has a position where he excels, a lot of that reputation is damaged. Jospeh at least could still hang his hat on the idea that he came from being a DC and his defenses didnt suck (although with that talent, how could they). Gase on the other hand has had pitiful excuses for offenses, how does anyone want him running their offense either?

    • D says:

      Stanger might be right, move down to college and build yourself back up, he at least can command the respect he wants from them since he can bench their asses and actually cost them millions in potential NFL revenues if they dont comply. Thats why the control freaks should stay in college.

      • stangerx says:

        In the NFL you deal with men who — at least the key ones — know they can get another job at the drop of a hat…. or at least on next contract. College is different. NCAA rules make it that way, and lets the coach be a dictator if he wants.

  130. bailbondmike says:

    Steve, the signing bonus is already paid by the Jets at the time of signing. It is just spread out over the contract. Therefore the Jets have to pay that, not us. We would have to just pay the base salary and roster bonus part of the contract. He would only cost 3.5(ish) mil in 2021 and 5.1(ish) mil in 2022.

  131. wyoming85 says:

    The best 2020 commercials!

  132. CavalierKong says:

    Has anyone here watched Joker, the Joaquin Phoenix movie? I’ve heard mixed stuff and can’t decide whether to give it a try or not.

    • stangerx says:

      For starters…. it’s not your superhero movie. Dark, somewhat slow, a bit disturbing and pretty well done. Was glad I watched even left me less than fulfilled. One of those won’t watch again though. All of which probably doesn’t help you decide. 🙂

    • D says:

      Awesome movie, it wont be like you think, its a much deeper dive than that, you will like it i almost certainly feel like it.

      • D says:

        I agree with Stanger, i wont watch it again, or if i do ill have to be really in the mood for it, but my reasons are different. I wont watch Requiem for a Dream because its just emotionally exhausting and id say the same here. I got to cut my self short on the description of why because ill ruin it for you, but i see it as a must watch.

      • CavalierKong says:

        I think you and Stang gave me enough. I feel precisely the same way as you about Requiem for a Dream, so that is a real good marker. Cheers

    • D says:

      Its not a feel good movie, its cinematic-ally masterful though. Those are my type movies, i mean if i can get the feel good to go with it, great but id rather leave the moving thinking damn i cant handle watching that again over i think im shitting rainbows and unicorns after wathing.

      • stangerx says:

        Walked away with awesome respect for the filmmakers…… after that probably popped in the Highlander DVD for the 20th time. 🙂

      • D says:

        Forrest Gump is kinda my go to but i just bail out before Jenny dies and little Forrest is left without a momma.

      • D says:

        I am a HUGE Highlander fan though, infact most my gaming characters from way back use to always have one that contained Highlander in the name unless it was one of the banned names.

  133. steveccnv says:

    I Amy Coney Barrett solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the US…

    Why are dem justices allowed to not follow this oath?

    • The Flying Pig says:

      They all swear by that oath

      • D says:

        there was a little trickery in his post lol, unfortunately you fell for it…. he said follow not make the oath.

      • steveccnv says:

        So why don’t they abide by it?

      • D says:

        and there is the setting of the hook lol

      • D says:

        well played sir…..

      • steveccnv says:

        It wasn’t meant to be a trick question. Why does it matter how many dems/reps there are on the court? When they take the oath to abide by the constitution, shouldn’t they all mostly decide cases the same way?

      • D says:

        Thats been my point from the beginning, they are jockeying because for some reason the branch that plays politic the most have a hard on for the appointment, but if they did their job, as they should, with no party bias, then its shouldn’t matter at all.

      • D says:

        The amount of work they are doing to stop it, really lets you know how that shit works, and i think its completely anti the intention so that branch as the founding father saw it.

    • stangerx says:

      steve — even originalists like Scalia did not go strictly by the constitution. That is simply impossible. Question is how much you read into it given the thing was written 250 years ago. The Barrets of the world want less…. but they are still doing it as well.

      • D says:

        I have to agree with him though, there have been a few things that it really was forcing a odd ruling to support something that seems like it was a political move. You are right too in that its almost unavoidable, on either side, but the point is the left is pushing to delay this right now and its not to get a more appropriate person for the nomination, its to hopeful get to make the nomination after they can get power and push their own cronie. I mean same deal can be said about why the senate is trying to push Barrett through, but i mean, the appointment happened on Trumps shift, its fair that he gets to make the ruling and to want it done otherwise screams of manipulation of a branch those guys shouldn’t at all be involved with its beign “their” person. Im not sweating who is appointed, im more disgusted by the political bullshit thats going on to make sure its one side or the others that gets the appointment.

      • steveccnv says:

        I don’t care about going strictly by the Constitution, because as you say its impossible, just on general terms, but shouldn’t there be more decision where the majority of both parties are on the same side?

      • stangerx says:

        steve — the most common decisions in the Supreme Court are 9-0, 8-1 and 7-2. You just hear about the other ones.

    • The Flying Pig says:

      THey abide by it Steve

      Whether they abide by it or not is not determined by the passing opinions of Trump supporters

      It’s whether they really do abide by it

      It’s kind of silly At this point to make these kind of arguments bc you are upset at their politics

      The amount of judges in the court is not in the constitution. It’s also not violating the constitution to argue to amend the constitution

      We aren’t under some kind of tyrant system where people can’t have opinions on how their country works for them simply bc it offends every red hat wearing cult member that not everyone wants to pledge loyalty to donald trump

      Come on dude…

      I didn’t argue that a barrel violates her lathe bc I disagree with her politics. That’s a crazy rabbit hole to go down

      • D says:

        So then you are OK with her appointment? If not then question what ya just said man. If this was Obama and he was headed out the door, and it happened on his shift, thats would have been fine for him to make the appointment, in fact if nothing iffy is going on with these appointments, it shouldn’t matter if its handled by an outside group, the right person for that job should be the right person period, there should be 0 politics involved with that appointment.

        Also i was seriously asking a question, because im not sure where you stand on the appointment of Barrett

      • steveccnv says:

        If they did abide by it, when any random decision was made you wouldn’t be able to distinguish the right from the left. This has nothing to do with Trump, it’s my own question into why it matters how many judges are on each side, if the decision is supposed to be based on the constitution and not the party affiliation.

        Since the decisions are based on party affiliation, why are they allowed to sway from the constitution and not uphold their oath?

      • The Flying Pig says:

        I don’t like originalism D. I think it leads to impractical application of the law and misses huge cultural changes in our society. So I hate her process but I respect that she has one

        But the process is not improper imo
        And she’s a qualified judge in her abilities

        She’s less experienced than I think is appropriate for scotus
        And I think that reveals a problem with special interest groups pushing for nominees which shouldn’t happen

        I don’t think appointing her was improper

        I don’t give too much weight to the tit for tat
        But I think garland should have been on the scotus

  134. D says:

    I see why RBG was an almost unanimous decision though i think she did start playing party politics after her appointment. She was a pivotal person in the legal battle for peoples rights, thats the epitome of what we want on there. It wasnt until much later that she not only was used as a political tool, but also started playing a little bit of politics herself. I would have voted for her for sure.

    • stangerx says:

      RBG got approved 96-3 cause was a different age. Back then all that mattered was the nominees qualifications. Other side accepted you have the right to nominate and you do (no matter who controlled the Senate). Wish it was still that way.

      • D says:

        Me too, i mean like i said, the appointment, whomever it was and whomever did it shouldn’t be too far off the same group of people up for consideration, but thats unfortunately not how it is. There shouldn’t be this much made over a supreme court appointment because we should roughly be selecting from the same people that everyone can agree on.

  135. D says:

    Well Steve if it wasn’t it was a very convenient mistake lol, opens up the whole conversation for the talking point i know you were trying to make.

  136. steveccnv says:

    Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

    judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court’s responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. “It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is,” he declared.


    It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens;

    So the big govt the dems stand for and Medicare for all can be shot down in the SC?

    • stangerx says:

      Medicare for all would be a pure legislative decision. Structured right and don’t see what the Court would have a problem with.

      • steveccnv says:

        Big govt, not what was intended.

      • The Flying Pig says:

        That’s your political opinion

        That’s not in the constitution

        The constitution does not require govt to be small

        The voters get to say how big or small they want it based on their votes

      • stangerx says:

        Not what was intended? Seems now you want to read into the Constitution. You have a problem with social security or Medicare now? Same types of programs approved by the legislature.

      • steveccnv says:

        I’m not reading shit into it, you guys are. The 2nd to last paragraph above I took from the SC says

        It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited.

      • stangerx says:

        steve — so that’s what Madison said back in the day. Is of interest, even if not a shut down argument in the Supreme Court. Explain why we have social security. Same kind of program.

    • The Flying Pig says:

      The legislative branch can pass legislation
      And if it’s challenged as unconstitutional, the scotus will decide whether that’s true or not

      And then decide whether the portion that’s not constitutional is severable or not

      Any major legalization can be shot down by the scotus

      This isn’t unique to m4a. It’s always been that way

      There are plenty of laws that survived those challenges and plenty that did not
      It’s always the way checks and balances work

      You can’t draft legislation, for example, that gets rid of the first amendment – if some one drafted a law that said, “Americans can’t voice their opinions at all” -it would be stricken even if it was very popular with the amercian public

      You vote for Congress
      You don’t vote for judges

      That’s checks and balances

      Basically, the laws congress passes – can’t violate the constitution
      And that applies to the states and their laws as well
      As well as city laws, etc…
      No one can pass laws that are unconstitutional

      And it’s not always easy to say when that occurs or it doesn’t

      A single payer healthcare system isn’t inherently unconstitutional

      If they severe the portion of the aca rather than strike it, then scotus pretty much lays down the foundation for what any future legislation might be permissible

  137. ocalarob says:

    instead of giving the cards 62, we could have drafted Metcalf

  138. The Flying Pig says:

    stangerx says:
    October 27, 2020 at 2:20 pm (Edit)
    steve — even originalists like Scalia did not go strictly by the constitution. That is simply impossible. Question is how much you read into it given the thing was written 250 years ago. The Barrets of the world want less…. but they are still doing it as well.

    ****

    Well said Stanger

    But this is way too much nuance for the cupping Trump’s balls crowd

    • steveccnv says:

      Your side is way too unconstitutional. Biden wants to appoint deuchebag beto to take guns away. As you say they can’t do that, so why is he campaigning on that?

      If they were to pack the court the checks and balance of the SC would be wiped out, why is that OK?

      • The Flying Pig says:

        gun legislation is not inherently unconstitutional
        There are plenty of laws that pass scotus scrutiny

        …and there’s plenty that don’t

        That’s the process. You get to vote for legislators who agree with you. And if they go to far, scotus will strike it down

  139. Mike E. says:

    Did anyone else see we’re taking offers for Xavien Howard? Why?

  140. Mike E. says:

    Kong, that was very impressive! (Metcalf)

  141. The Flying Pig says:

    I’m guessing, as D said, anything for Howard is about Some one giving up many pics
    It’s probably some one’s offer, not that we are shopping him
    Like tunsil

  142. D says:

    Ok completely random and pretty gross thought. Why is it that ear wax seem to almost spontaneously liquefy from time to time, and also despite cleaning your ears out pretty regularly, it seems to almost appear overnight…..its perplexing.

  143. D says:

    ocalarob says:
    October 27, 2020 at 2:27 pm

    instead of giving the cards 62, we could have drafted Metcalf
    ————————————————-
    When he fell to the second i was thinking ok here is our shot to get him and when we traded that pick i knew we wouldn’t get him, but i also felt like getting Rosen was an ok compensation.

    • D says:

      Obviously didn’t work out that way. He was easily in the top 3 receivers in that draft, him falling that far was just retarded.

  144. pheloniusphish says:

    Y’all know that the whole Barrett – SCOTUS thing is RBG’s fault, right? She is the reason that Trump got to nominate her replacement. She could have retired in her 80’s while Obama was president and ensured that her replacement would have been a liberal judge. But she didn’t. She held on to power until death. Now we have a conservative majority on the bench. C’est la vie…The democrats have no reason to complain.

    • The Flying Pig says:

      Merrick Garland is a pretty good reason to complain

      • stangerx says:

        I have no problem with Barret joining the court. I do with Garland getting shut out.

      • steveccnv says:

        That’s the precedent, you have control of the Senate in an election year and your selection goes thru, you don’t and it doesn’t.

      • stangerx says:

        “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”
        — South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham

      • steveccnv says:

        Was there a Senate of the same party?

      • pheloniusphish says:

        Nope. If RBG had retired the year before Garland would be a sitting Justice.

      • stangerx says:

        steve — Graham said what he said as he helped block Garland. Did you see some exceptions in his statement?

    • stangerx says:

      RBG made a mistake. Typical for Justices to retire before an election with a possible turnover, but then guess she like the world didn’t think there would be Trump. 2016 results were a shocker. But seems democrats have plenty of reason to complain about what RBG chose to do at her age.

  145. Mike E. says:

    Everyone has a price but at some point don’t you want to keep your great players? It’s not always about acquiring more picks, it’s about having great players. I think doing that now sends a bad message to a team that has already made a major move at QB. It’s almost saying not important how Tua does, this year doesn’t matter.

    • The Flying Pig says:

      I agree. At some point keep your good licks and stop trying to get more of them

    • CavalierKong says:

      It really seems to me this defense came together once we had our top 2 CBs on the field. I’d hate to see us take a big step back.

      • D says:

        I doubt it happens man, i dont think there is a worry to have, but this is a business and this is how the Pats have been dominant for decades.

    • D says:

      You cant, not with Salary caps. You can keep them all, and like i said, there is no way Howard walks out of here without a lot in return, so its almost like they arent actually putting hinm on the market because who would pay what they are wanting, a manic right, maybe Bill Obrien, but he is out. So yeah i get it, it suck seeing great players get up and then leave, but there is a point where if you want to have long term health in the organization you do keep doing some of these things, before they lose value, before they become Rehsad Jones and you wish you took that offer ya had for him 2 years ago.

      • D says:

        Also it sending a bad message, i dont see it. The players will make decisions best for them and call it a business decision, are they then allowed to see the reverse of that happen to them and say thats bullshit….people when arguing about football being able loyalty and support and blah blah blah they seems to say this when it affects them not when they profit by it.

    • steveccnv says:

      Yes, to a point, but with Howard’s knees and his age not aligning with Tua’s I can see why they’d do it, but they better get a first at a min.

      • D says:

        I wouldn’t trade him for anything less than a first this year and next or a first this year and maybe a 2nd this same year. Draft his replacement this , and add another guy who can help us have a next man up at another position. Or be able to ttake to stabs at drafting a replacement with the back to back firsts.

      • D says:

        take two stabs

  146. D says:

    The only real people safe in this system, and for the long term health of an organization is to either be the centerpiece of a group, like Byron Jones, on a big contract with lots of dead money, or to be more specific, not enough money to be freed up by dealing you, or to be on a rookie contract and not up for contract next year (and also be one for those corner-piece people). If not they will probably put you up and take what they feel is a good deal for the team. Having two vert CB’s both of which are really top of their game is kinda a luxury, should be the dark-side way, a Master and an Apprentice, so dealing one once the other peaks, is kinda how this system works. Again, my guess is the price tag on Howard is retarded high. Still if someone wants top pay it, they will take it and pick up Surtain next year and begin grooming him to replace Jones, so forth and so on.

    • steveccnv says:

      They say there’s an offer in place, and we’re considering it. Well if we’re shopping him and a deal is being considered, it’s not what they expected to get.

    • Mike E. says:

      I can’t agree with getting rid of X. He’s 27, I mean it takes time to get a guy to be where X is, so you get him there and then get rid of him? Maybe Iggy can be competent, maybe you can draft a guy as good, but you then you’re on a treadmill. We’re trying to get to the point where we’re a perennial playoff team, so you can’t keep subtracting talent and accomplish that.

  147. CavalierKong says:

    I sort of agree it’s the Patriot way, and I’m down with that, but that is for the offseason. I don’t ever recall them trading away their talent in the middle of the season.

  148. Randy says:

    I would love to join in on this conversation….but I’m just too stupid. However, that doesn’t prevent me from commenting on football! Trade X. Hell, trade anybody on this team if you get a great deal for them. I’m in the mood to fuck everybody over! I feel quite Trumpian. Fuck everybody….and the gay mule they rode in on!

  149. D says:

    pheloniusphish says:
    October 27, 2020 at 2:51 pm

    Y’all know that the whole Barrett – SCOTUS thing is RBG’s fault, right? She is the reason that Trump got to nominate her replacement. She could have retired in her 80’s while Obama was president and ensured that her replacement would have been a liberal judge. But she didn’t. She held on to power until death. Now we have a conservative majority on the bench. C’est la vie…The democrats have no reason to complain.
    ————————————————————-
    I almost commented to that effect. If she and the dems had been smart they would have asked her to resign right before Obama went out. They knew she wasn’t gonna make it much longer and though she has a very strong place in that branch, and helped them, they should have replaced her then. Hell i had like these images in my mid every time i heard about her, laying in some room strapped up to every life sustaining device known to man with the democrat leaders slapping her every time she started slipping a way and going, hang in there one more month dammit!. She should have stepped down so they could make the appointment.

    • stangerx says:

      No problem with Barret taking over after RBG passed. She made her choice and it didn’t work out. Am sure the Obama folks wanted her to retire though…. even if don’t know for a fact.

  150. steveccnv says:

    Sure would be nice to play with X and Byron for a few games and Iggy at nickel, before making some rash trade, too bad Byron got hurt earlier.

    On the other hand it’s nice to have multiple 1st round picks.

  151. pheloniusphish says:

    I hope they don’t trade Howard. I mean if they get a Tunsil kind of offer and they think IbbyGibby can play the position the rest of the year…okay i guess. But I wouldn’t if i was GM of the world and had a clue. Defense is coming together and Howard is a big part of why.

    • stangerx says:

      I have no clue where this talk came from….. not even much on the news. If they are going to trade him though….. they have 40 minutes.

  152. pheloniusphish says:

    How many 1st round picks can a team use and still legitimately pick players that help win?

  153. steveccnv says:

    I don’t understand the question. First round picks are always supposed to start, unless at QB and that isn’t in play here now.

    • pheloniusphish says:

      Yes but if you load your team with first rounders at the expense of experienced players you are in constant player development phase. And statistically, half of them are not going to live up to the hype.

  154. pheloniusphish says:

    Maybe they are worried about Howard’s knees. After all, they see him in the locker room after every game.

  155. CavalierKong says:

    “Apes don’t read philosophy.”
    “Yes they do, Otto, they just don’t understand it.”

    “Let me correct you on a couple of things. Aristotle was not Belgian. The central philosophy of Buddhism is not ‘every man for himself’. And The London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes…”

    LOL

  156. wyoming85 says:

    I see Omar and the boys are back at it again!

  157. wyoming85 says:

  158. Mike E. says:

    See! It didn’t make sense in the first place!

  159. stangerx says:

    Have to give Adam Beasley credit for tweeting out that the SS is full of crap. Or maybe it wasn’t his reporting….. in which case interesting times in the office.

    • wyoming85 says:

  160. Randy says:

    “A Fish Called Wanda” is a great flick…one of my favorites. It doesn’t hurt that Jamie Lee Curtis’ boobs are in it…..oh, and John Cleese. Lol

  161. wyoming85 says:

    I can’t give you any Omar tweets. I don’t follow him!

  162. wyoming85 says:

    Ok I went and found this!
    SMH

  163. bookman11 says:

    I will say this about all of the comments are bout trading players, or cutting them just at the star of their decline…..that’s great, I hope we do that AFTER we have appeared in and won a few more Super Bowls and can start to call ourselves a dynasty. We haven’t done anything close to that in 40 years, so call me when that happens, otherwise I would like us to start KEEPING some of these guys

  164. Rhino says:

    Dolphins 23
    Rams 20

  165. Rockphin says:

    If the SCOTUS should be non-partisan why does the Federalist Society exist? Why are 6 of the 9 judges on the SCOTUS all hand picked by this “non-partisan HA! HA! group”?

    Hypocrisy

    • pheloniusphish says:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society
      The Federalist Society doesn’t hand pick any judge. They have a membership and an opinion. That’s it. 6 of the current 9 Supremes were members. Not particularly surprising since it is a conservative/libertarian organization. Exists to counter liberal loonies attempts to throw the constitution away.

      • Rockphin says:

        is it focused on sitting judges from the RIGHT?

        YES IT IS.

        My statement stands.

      • stangerx says:

        Federalist Society is something more than some kind of club these days. Mitch and Trump have pretty much been going off their recs as far as judges and justices. And there is nothing wrong with that…. but a major force in the legal world so long as the is a conservative Pres.

    • pheloniusphish says:

      Yes, judges from the right. Conservatives and Libertarians.

  166. Rockphin says:

    We MAY have already drafted Howards replacement in the first round this past draft. Iggy is a good prospect and they have kept him on the boundary for a reason….

    I don’t want to lose Howard, but he has never stayed healthy a whole season and has bad knees.

    If we can get multiple high picks ( a first and more) I might make the trade.

  167. Rockphin says:

    Late to the party, by the time I comment it is revealed that the whole thing is fake new by Omar!?

  168. sb7mvp says:

    D,
    Whenever I watch Forrest Gump, I’m the opposite. I like to fast forward to the part where Jenny dies and then do my best Nelson Muntz impression.

    • D says:

      Well truthfully i 90% of the time watch it all the way through, it just depends on if i feel the need to feel good. Like i hate Jenny as a character, (and as a name come to think about it, my ex is named Jenny lol), but i feel bad for little forest that he doesnt get to have his whore cunt mother around to see him grow up.

  169. pheloniusphish says:

    Omar’s tweet says “Full Discloser.” Dude is supposed to be a journalist and doesn’t know the term is “Full Disclosure?” What a tool…journalism is dead.

  170. D says:

    pheloniusphish says:
    October 27, 2020 at 3:16 pm

    I hope they don’t trade Howard. I mean if they get a Tunsil kind of offer and they think IbbyGibby can play the position the rest of the year…okay i guess. But I wouldn’t if i was GM of the world and had a clue. Defense is coming together and Howard is a big part of why.
    ————————————————————————-
    That or with one of the two firsts they already have they could land Surtain, or Wade from OSU. Both more pree style CB’s who could fill that role better than Iggy. Iggy isnt too shabby on the outside, but to me his skillset is much better for NCB

  171. pheloniusphish says:

    Wouldn’t it be great if the Biplanes got the number one pick and Lawrence decided to stay in school?
    https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/10/27/trevor-lawrence-my-mindset-has-been-to-go-pro-but-who-knows/

  172. wyoming85 says:

  173. D says:

    I mean the movie had a ton of great comedic actors/actresses but Kevin Kline to me stole the show.

  174. D says:

    CBS Sports’ Cody Benjamin constructed a position-by-position list of 75 players that could be on the move ahead of the Nov. 3 trade deadline. Some of the notable names include Saints quarterback Jameis Winston, Bengals wide receiver A.J. Green, Texans edge rusher J.J. Watt and Patriots cornerback Stephon Gilmore. For the full list, check out CBSSports.com.
    ————————————————–
    Guess i wasnt off on the Texans willing to trade Watt. Maybe he goes to the Steelers where he joins both his brothers.

  175. wyoming85 says:

  176. Tim Knight says:

    Rock, Libertarians are not right wing. They are fiscally conservative but socially liberal as they believe in individual freedom and that you own yourself.

  177. D says:

    Haason Reddick, whom many of you all drooled over during his draft year, is supposedly available as is Watt and Mercilus, Takk McKinley, Dunlap from the Bengals, and Ingram from the Chargers. Some of those are nice names to consider, Reddick i wasn’t big on when he was drafted, i felt like he wasnt going to hit the ground running so i wouldnt have used a high pick on him, but he has very slowly developed to be a pretty decent player, so now that all the work has been done it might not be a bad play if the price is right. Keep in mind the pass rush pool isn’t that great next year, some decent players, and some decent hybrid types, but nothing outstanding.

  178. D says:

    Myles Jack is supposed on the block, as well as Sheldon Rankins from the saints, those are two players that make us better as well. Marcus Maye from the Jets, though it kinda helps them go full dumpster fire.

  179. Mike E. says:

    Discloser eh? Omar should have checked that one before throwing that out there . . .

    • stangerx says:

      He didn’t back down though, chose to play the victim. Would love to know where he did get the info. Dolphins would too.

      • Mike E. says:

        Not backing down doesn’t necessarily mean he did the right thing. He might have had a bad source, either way, just say it was mistake and explain why.

      • CavalierKong says:

        All he had to do was check with the team and report their response. He could have written the exact same article, same headline, and thrown a single line with the team’s response. He’s a shitty reporter.

  180. D says:

    Lol, they guy is such a fag play thug that one day he is going to catch a beat down for his posing lol. I hope one of the fucking player just snap and tear his braided coconut off. Maybe we get a real thug ass white receiver, like out of Penn U and i dont mean Pennsylvania \University. He pulls some white receiver shit on him and he straight up grabs the braids and walks off with that fucker head and straight back to prison lol. Full on Hernandez style and just sits down and goes “worth it”.

  181. stangerx says:

    “Wasn’t that terrible, the difference? All this anger, craziness, right?…Fire coming out of her eyes.”
    — about 78-year-old Lesley Stahl, who far as I can tell is real polite. But guess she is real scary to some.

  182. wyoming85 says:

  183. herdfan says:

    I don’t know how to tell you guys this but last week was our bye week. Or bi week. Whatever does it for you. Nothing judgy from me.

  184. bailbondmike says:

    My biggest concern for this weekends game is the speed of the game for Tua. Rams only had 3 sacks against the Bears but their pressure was relentless and we still don’t have a run game.

    • Tim Knight says:

      I think we run the ball well enough to keep a defense honest. It would be nice to see some more explosive plays overall though.

  185. Mike E. says:

    Stanger – Didn’t see it, but he’s dealt with some real nonsense from 2 of the moderators so maybe she just went over the top and he decided he didn’t want to deal with it. Do you know what she said, how she said it?

    • Tim Knight says:

      She continued to pepper him with the same questions after he answered them as if he said the opposite. You know how Kamala Harris always has that big arrogant smile as if anything against her is a joke, that’s what Lesley Stahl reminded me of.

      I’ll ask a simple question: who do you think Lesley Stahl supports?

      • Mike E. says:

        Of course. I just read an article on it. So she proceeds to ask him why he called Fauci and idiot. He said I never called Fauci an idiot, he said in response to her question about COVID that people don’t want to hear about Fauci anymore, and these idiots that got it wrong. He asked he why she doesn’t talk about Biden, she said we don’t bring up unverified information. WHAT A CROCK! You know what, fuck Lelsey Stahl and the liberal media she works for.

      • Tim Knight says:

        Another thing about Kamala Harris is when she’s talking about growing up as a young black girl, she reverts to talking like an 8 year old who is on the verge of crying. It’s such an act it makes my skin crawl. That’s one of the main reasons I’ve been against Democrats for decades. They speak to people and mostly their base as if they’re children and they will never survive without them. They use different dialects for different groups they are speaking to. Big Brother and Big Sister to the rescue. It’s so disrespectful and demeaning and people buy into it. Sad.

    • stangerx says:

      Guess you guys saw the interview different than I did. Trump still cut it short for what me seemed little reason, but guess that just my take.

      • Tim Knight says:

        I think he’s tired of the same old same old nonsense. There is no doubt the mass media is bias in favor of the Democratic Party. So now you need independent social media outlets to balance it out. I’ve been seeing this long before Trump.

  186. wyoming85 says:

  187. herdfan says:

    This may seem a little far fetched, but then again, there’s some crazy stuff that gets posted here. It has crossed my mind more than once that Trump never intended to be President. I think he said he was running the last time and it just took off. I think he was bragging and spewing stuff like he does, and BOOM, he was ahead in the polls. And it went from there, and with some help from the Dems by putting Hillary as his opponent, he won.

    After the first debate, it made me think of it again. I think that show was intentional. He never intended to win the first time, and now he’s trying to lose it this time. I think he’s tired of it. He’s able to brag about how the economy was doing before Covid came along, he can blame any problems currently on Covid and get out by losing.

    Stranger things….

  188. Randy says:

    I’m not a big Kevin Kline fan, but he was excellent in Wanda. They were all really good, actually.

  189. Randy says:

    Herd,
    I think Trump simply wanted to be able to brag that he was President and that he made our economy boom. He already has and will continue to make money off it, but it’s really about his ego and what he can now say forever he was or did. Actually doing the work of being a President was never something he was interested in. The ego stroke and the power rush are all he really wanted.

  190. wyoming85 says:

    D are you East of the cone?
    I’m pretty sure BBM is?

  191. New Age says:

    I’m surprised Steve or Phelon haven’t mentioned Tony Bobulinki’s interview with Tucker. There’s the smoking gun for Biden corruption and why he’s compromised. Guy has sold America out to ensure his family profited off our biggest competitor. On the other side, people still talk about Russia and Trump when there’s video of Biden bragging of withholding financial aid to Ukraine. Russia, with an economy smaller than California is a bigger threat than China? Ummmm, what?!

  192. TOP SECRET says:

    i bet you all, one american dollar that NOBODY will watch this, and still vote for that corrupt old fucking fool.

    • TOP SECRET says:

      wait a minute …… i take that bet back ………i just remembered how many American hating liberals support that crooked bastard, and will ignore the truth ……….sad.

  193. TOP SECRET says:

    Q: any of you guys wonder why the main stream media refuses to even cover this?
    A: FAKE ASS NEWS.
    Q: any of you guys wonder why Tucker Carlson is kicking ass in the ratings?
    A: probably because he EXPOSES THE TRUTH.

    • New Age says:

      Tucker is my favorite media person now. He’s far better than Hannity or anyone honestly. He will call out both sides but there’s a lot more ammo on the left.

  194. TOP SECRET says:

    dude cracks me up…….lol.

  195. Mike E. says:

    Happy Birthday Herd!!!

  196. The Flying Pig says:

    Top

    When can we expect the clips of alien abductions and Elvis sightings?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s