Skip to main content

9,076 replies

Say Something Completely Random And Off Topic

W wine+artMember
ProSys posted:

From a Salon article:

Always impulsive, the president increasingly believes he does not need advisers, according to people close to him.  He is on his third chief of staff, third national security adviser, sixth communications director, second secretary of state, second attorney general and soon his second defense secretary.  Turnover at the top has reached 65 percent, according to the Brookings Institution.

Some left in a cloud of corruption allegations, including his health and human services secretary, his Environmental Protection Agency chief and, most recently, his interior secretary.  Others left after clashing with Mr. Trump.  Mr. Mattis was the last of the so-called axis of adults seen by some as tempering a volatile president, following the ouster of Rex W. Tillerson as secretary of state, H.R. McMaster as national security adviser and John F. Kelly as chief of staff.

 
Definitely the hall marks of a self-described "very stable genius"..... 
 

I know how to fix things. Let me hire a Secretary of Defense with zero military experience. Genius!

No doubt Napa and his ilk are very proud and I can only hope Napa is one of those not getting paid during the orange dumps childish temper tantrum. 

M mikemannMember
wineart 2 posted:
g-man posted:

we should make it a panel of 19 supreme court judges.

If they're there for life, then they can be there arguing for life!

🙃... The Supreme Court with its lifetime appointments and with no reasoning of when one gets appointed is a curious branch of our government. Look at the last 7 presidential elections. The Democratic presidential candidate has won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections, yet a democrat has only four current justices and with RBG’s health, it may very well be only 3 of 9 sooner than later. 

wineart 2 posted:
g-man posted:

we should make it a panel of 19 supreme court judges.

If they're there for life, then they can be there arguing for life!

🙃... The Supreme Court with its lifetime appointments and with no reasoning of when one gets appointed is a curious branch of our government. Look at the last 7 presidential elections. The Democratic presidential candidate has won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections, yet a democrat has only four current justices and with RBG’s health, it may very well be only 3 of 9 sooner than later. 

One can only hope.

winetarelliwinetarelliMember
wineart 2 posted:
jcocktosten posted:
wineart 2 posted:

Thank you, Chief Justice!

Perhaps we have a new swing vote to replace Kennedy.

Not remotely IMO.  An extremely conservative justice albeit one who has some respect for precedent and some intellectual honesty unlike Alito, Gorsuch and and Thomas.  That he is being viewed as a swing vote shows just how dramatically the Court has moved to the right 

He has clearly been the swing vote just like yesterday. Kennedy was too a very conservative judge, and in fact had an equal conservative rating as Roberts with one major exception, gay rights. Remove Kennedy’s correct view ( my opinion) on all things gay rights and he voted 23 out of 25 times with the extreme right judges over the past decades on major split vote issues.

Don’t forget Kennedy voted to overturn Obamacare and I’m not sure he would not have voted with the right yesterday based on his past. It was Roberts that saved Obamacare six years ago, not Kennedy. I guess my point is, “if” there is a swing vote, it will be Roberts as there seems to be a lock 4-4 vote almost guaranteed anymore all too often, IMO.  

I always appreciate hearing your opinion, JC. 

Roberts is sane and principled and very Conservative. He is the Conservative version of RBG or John Paul Stevens (R appointment). Sotomayor is probably more moderate than either. By most reasonable metrics, Kagan and Breyer are only Liberal by a hair. Souter (R appointment) and Merrick Garland were/are straight down the middle and Sandra Day O’Connor was Conservative, but not very. There simply is no modern SC Liberal equivalent to Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh. And there is no 21st century precedent for a Republican to appoint moderately Conservative justices*, despite at least 3 of the last five Democratic appointments being roughly moderate, with one straight down the middle.

*who are not the lunch lady. 

The reason I post this is the recent R insistence on elevating to the SC activist justices who are outside the mainstream has the very real (and intended) possible outcome of fundamentally altering our rights and usurping normal legislative functions. And people like to say, “both sides do X,” or, “both sides do X, just to varying degrees,” and it is often true. But that simply is not the case re: SC appointments since Souter’s appointment almost 30 years ago.  And the extreme-ifying of the Conservative side of the SC is causing politicization around it, generally (eg. McConnell’s Garland blockade). Which, in turn, is causing a general public skepticism regarding the most sacred of our institutions whose decisions are incredibly difficult to undo. 

Last edited by winetarelli
irwinirwinMember

in the first two years of his reign, President Trump had promised a border wall. The Republicans controlled the Senate. The Republicans controlled the House.  No border wall.

So, why now? Why when the Dems control the House (shortly) and there will not be funding for a wall?  It's pure distraction.  Border wall + shut down on the front burner; Mueller investigation on the back burner.

 

G g-manMember

I want to point out, that, throughout history, there has been a particular country that has built a gigantic border wall.

And it failed, miserably.  The mongols had no trouble invading the country even with a massive wall.

Also, in modern times, more foreigners, now cross, step on, across, take pieces off the wall than ever before.

irwinirwinMember
g-man posted:

I want to point out, that, throughout history, there has been a particular country that has built a gigantic border wall.

And it failed, miserably.  The mongols had no trouble invading the country even with a massive wall.

Also, in modern times, more foreigners, now cross, step on, across, take pieces off the wall than ever before.

I think you've hit on a great idea, G-Man.  We build the wall.  It becomes a great tourist attraction.  We make it a national monument. We charge admission for people to touch it, kick it, etc.  We recoup the $5 Billion.  If we charge $5 per person, and we get 10,000 visitors per year, that would be $50,000 per year, and it would only take..................never mind.

W wine+artMember
irwin posted:
g-man posted:

I want to point out, that, throughout history, there has been a particular country that has built a gigantic border wall.

And it failed, miserably.  The mongols had no trouble invading the country even with a massive wall.

Also, in modern times, more foreigners, now cross, step on, across, take pieces off the wall than ever before.

I think you've hit on a great idea, G-Man.  We build the wall.  It becomes a great tourist attraction.  We make it a national monument. We charge admission for people to touch it, kick it, etc.  We recoup the $5 Billion.  If we charge $5 per person, and we get 10,000 visitors per year, that would be $50,000 per year, and it would only take..................never mind.

Irwin, but it would offer a wonderful canvas for graffiti artist! 

The facts are we have a willfully ignorant president who has averaged over 10 lies per day, 10! That can’t be easy.

The POS wants $5B. That would allow enough money for between 150 and 200 miles of wall for a 1900 mile border. Now that would not include any annual or long term maintenance, additional  personnel required to monitor forever, additional technologies required, just some dumbass wall that would only be 1700 miles short of the entire border. The fact is the overwhelming numbers of illegals enter through border crossings, not some remote location.

The facts are only half of illegal immigrants are from Mexico and half of those came here legally and have overstayed their visa due to outdated work visa laws. A wall does nothing to address these issues. 

The president knows that the 1/3 of the voting Americans that support him are also willfully ignorant and incapable of critical thinking ( see Napa and the other troll here) so it doesn’t matter what BS comes out of his mouth. Plus, we all know Mexico is going to pay for it, trust me Trump says. 

W wine+artMember

Every time I think the orange dump has hit the bottom, he proves me wrong. 

The very man who’s father paid a doctor to create a false diagnosis of the worlds worse bone spur that took the longest in history to heal now stands in front of the men and women of our armed forces and blatantly lies his fat ass off. Trump is truly clinically ill.

Trump says they have not had a pay raise in over 10 years. What a liar. They have received pay increases for over 30 straight years. He says they were only going to get a 2% raise, or a 4% and Trump said NO, give them a 10% raise which he said they got. Again, just your trash liar known as Trump. They received the 2.4 - 2.6% as it has been for sometime. 

It was funny seeing a Trump supporter on a national news show this morning. He was asked if he was disturbed that Trump has told over 7500 lies in his first 700 days. Of coarse he said no. He then said why didn’t the fact checkers count Obama’s lies? The interviewer then said that in fact his lies were counted. He told 18 in 8 years. Trump is on pace for nearly 16,000! I have no doubt Napa and his ilk are so very proud. 

irwinirwinMember
purplehaze posted:

I think I woulda been a good general... but who knows.  

PH

I would have been a terrible soldier.  I hate taking orders from anyone, but in particular, I hate taking orders from people who are dumber than I am.  I am also bad at delegating tasks to others, and thus, I would have been a lousy general.  Fortunately, we have people in our country who are willing to do both of these types of tasks, and many are good at it.

 

W wine+artMember
purplehaze posted:

I think I woulda been a good general... but who knows.  

PH

Just think, he could of been the first general with a personal hairdresser, and many others could have learned about back- combing, hair weaves and orange spray tans. I’m not sure the military could afford a can of hairspray used everyday. 

I have no doubt he has GI Joe pajamas. 😎

V vincentricMember
wineart 2 posted:
purplehaze posted:

I think I woulda been a good general... but who knows.  

PH

Just think, he could of been the first general with a personal hairdresser, and many others could have learned about back- combing, hair weaves and orange spray tans. I’m not sure the military could afford a can of hairspray used everyday. 

I have no doubt he has GI Joe pajamas. 😎

..not to mention the cost of orange spray tan!

 

W wine+artMember

Thank you to Chris Wallace of Fox News for calling out Sarah Sanders and her BS lies as she tried to spread the lies from the Orange Dump. As Wallace corrected her BS, there have not been some 4000 terrorist caught crossing at the Southern border. Complete and total lie.

Truth is as Fox News and Wallace pointed out, these people were questioned and vetted at airports for often having similar or same names as people on the watch list, or having unusual credentials. AIRPORTS, what a novel thought....

Napa and his ilk have zero use for facts or truth and Trump knows it. 

flwinoflwinoMember
bman posted:
flwino posted:
bman posted:

Last time I checked.....

We and most other countries also valued life!

Sarah is losing her touch or, perhaps, as the article suggests, she's out of practice after avoiding any serious questioning from the media for the past few weeks.

How can you sleep knowing you told lies all day?

It's why she makes the big money!

when I grew up, if a lie was told, parents would wash out your mouth with soap.  They way this group goes, II better by more stock in a soap company

irwinirwinMember

The President addresses the country tonight.  I've been watching these presidential addresses for many years.  I've watched LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama.    On the one hand, I think it is important to know what the President says and to think about it critically yourself, rather than rely on news media to select the highlights and feed commentary to you.  But, on the other hand, I have no anti-nausea medication on hand, and I don't think I could get through the first sentence or two tonight without it.

I don't know if all of the networks will cover this.  But, we can stream something. 

W wine+artMember
irwin posted:

The President addresses the country tonight.  I've been watching these presidential addresses for many years.  I've watched LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama.    On the one hand, I think it is important to know what the President says and to think about it critically yourself, rather than rely on news media to select the highlights and feed commentary to you.  But, on the other hand, I have no anti-nausea medication on hand, and I don't think I could get through the first sentence or two tonight without it.

I don't know if all of the networks will cover this.  But, we can stream something. 

Serious question, what would the over/under be on how many verifiable lies Trump will tell tonight? 

winetarelliwinetarelliMember
wineart 2 posted:
irwin posted:

The President addresses the country tonight.  I've been watching these presidential addresses for many years.  I've watched LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama.    On the one hand, I think it is important to know what the President says and to think about it critically yourself, rather than rely on news media to select the highlights and feed commentary to you.  But, on the other hand, I have no anti-nausea medication on hand, and I don't think I could get through the first sentence or two tonight without it.

I don't know if all of the networks will cover this.  But, we can stream something. 

Serious question, what would the over/under be on how many verifiable lies Trump will tell tonight? 

I think it might need to be judged per minute. 

But... realistically over the course of the speech I would think 12-14 fully distinct and verifiably false claims with another +/-10 distinct claims wholly unsupported by evidence. Most claims repeated multiple times. I would also suggest at least 2 pairs of mutually refuting claims and 23 instances of claiming personal victimization at the hands of “the media” or Democrats. 

Last edited by winetarelli
bmanbmanMember

So as much as he ever has anything one might call a "strategy", here is what I think it is:

-declare a national emergency and say he is building his wall without Congressional approval

-various organizations go to court and are granted a stay on the building of the wall

-after a few weeks or months the Supreme Court renders a decision, probably in his favour since he does seem to have the power to do I

Meanwhile, his base is sated, the Republicans in Congress are divided even more, and the Democrats are united even more.  Trump's odds of being re-elected, and the Republicans' odds of holding the Senate and taking back the House get longer, thanks to the above-mentioned divisions but more due to a steady flow of reporting on how silly and wasteful the whole thing is, and how other parts of government, the military in particular, are short of funds that have been diverted to building the wall.

R RothkoMember
bman posted:

So as much as he ever has anything one might call a "strategy", here is what I think it is:

-declare a national emergency and say he is building his wall without Congressional approval

-various organizations go to court and are granted a stay on the building of the wall

-after a few weeks or months the Supreme Court renders a decision, probably in his favour since he does seem to have the power to do I

Meanwhile, his base is sated, the Republicans in Congress are divided even more, and the Democrats are united even more.  Trump's odds of being re-elected, and the Republicans' odds of holding the Senate and taking back the House get longer, thanks to the above-mentioned divisions but more due to a steady flow of reporting on how silly and wasteful the whole thing is, and how other parts of government, the military in particular, are short of funds that have been diverted to building the wall.

I am thinking something similar:

1.  Go on TV tonight and declare a National Emergency and say that he is going to build the Wall based on this declaration and using discretionary "National Emergency Funds" (whatever that means).

2.  At the same time, excoriate the Democrats for the government shutdown and declare that he is willing to sign a bill from the House/Senate that re-opens the government without the need for appropriating money for the wall, since that will come from his "National Emergency Funds".    

3.  Take credit for re-opening the government when the House and Senate send him a bill tomorrow.

4.  Various organizations go to court to fight on the Wall being built based on a National Emergency declaration.  Court fight drags on and everyone forgets about it as we move on to the next crisis.  In the meantime, continue to campaign about the need for the Wall.

5.  It doesn't matter what happens.  If he wins in court, great, he gets to build the Wall with National Emergency Funds.  If he loses in court, then excoriate the courts, the media, the Democrats, etc...

It's the only way I can see him getting out of this mess that he created, and still declare himself the Victor.

 

Last edited by Rothko
bmanbmanMember
doubled posted:

It's because the state overwhelmingly voted for Hillary.  He doesn't realize that the fires occur in areas that are mostly pro-Trump if I understand the demographics correctly.

That can't be it.  No US President would rant and rave about something as serious and deadly as forest fires just to punish a perceived political opponent.  Who would do such a thing? 

InsightInsightMember

So now CNN is finally giving serious thought to yesterday's revelation that Manafort's attorneys failed to properly redact information.  This was in a recently submitted response to Mueller's team stating Manfort breached their plea agreement.  I guess the buildup to the Oval Office address from Putin's Bitch last night had something to do with the delayed analysis, but whoo boy is the info that came to light pretty serious.  It completely knocks down any contention by Trump and his minions that Manafort was only doing illegal stuff before he became the campaign manager/chairman.  And the likelihood is slim to none that Manafort was acting solely of his own volition when he shared polling data with a Russian-Ukrainian political operative who ran Manafort's consulting office in Kiev for 10 years and has ties to Russian intelligence, and slim left the building a long time ago.

An interesting question is whether this was truly incompetence on the part of Manafort's legal team (wouldn't be the first time we had clear evidence of that), or if this was deliberately done to let Putin's Bitch and his remaining minions know that Mueller and his team know of these shenanigans.  Call me 50/50 on which it actually is.......

bmanbmanMember

The mayor of the Texas town Trump is visiting tomorrow made an very interesting and largely overlooked point today:  if Trump builds a wall along the Rio Grande where it forms the border and doesn't put it in the middle of the river, then that wall serves no purpose.  As soon as anyone on the other side sets foot on land, including on the other side of the wall, they are legally in the US and so if they claim refugee status, they must be processed.  Which would not necessarily keep them out of the US if Trump succeeds in keeping them in Mexico while their claims are processed, but I think that remains to be seen, and of course it would just add to the backlog of claims and administrative chaos.

As someone who lived and worked many years in Central America interviewing hundreds of people applying for refugee and other kinds of humanitarian status, my view is that Trump would make America much safer by spending a lot more money supporting the economies and especially law enforcement in the source countries so that people there had less reason to try to come to the US.  While that would not solve the problem - nothing will "solve" it of course - a little money would go a long way to making it better.

C csmMember
bman posted:

The mayor of the Texas town Trump is visiting tomorrow made an very interesting and largely overlooked point today:  if Trump builds a wall along the Rio Grande where it forms the border and doesn't put it in the middle of the river, then that wall serves no purpose.  As soon as anyone on the other side sets foot on land, including on the other side of the wall, they are legally in the US and so if they claim refugee status, they must be processed. 

He said during the campaign that not only would Mexico pay, the wall would also be on its side of the river, since they don't want to cede the river to Mexico.  I'm sure Mr. Tangerine Man is hoping people forget about that promise, but that's what he said. 

sd-wineauxsd-wineauxMember
bman posted:

Does anyone know where Trump's sudden fascination and anger about California forest fires comes from, never mind his false "facts"?  I presume it's from someone who was on Fox or some right-wing whackadoodle source?

It might be because of this.

<excerpt>
At the event, Governor Newsom also announced that he has joined with Governors Kate Brown of Oregon and Jay Inslee of Washington in requesting President Donald Trump double the federal government’s financial investment in managing federal forestlands in California, Washington, and Oregon.
</excerpt>

winetarelliwinetarelliMember
g-man posted:

Words don't describe Steve King

I can think of a few that come close. 

He has been an out White Supremacist in all but self-attributed name for a while now. It is nice to see public Conservatives denouncing him, but this is not really news to anyone who has been paying attention even remotely. We’ll see how Kevin McCarthy plays it, but whatever he does it will be for political reasons.

flwinoflwinoMember
bman posted:
mimik posted:

https://www.rt.com/usa/448632-...-negative-reactions/

Happy to see her as a candidate, but she's not going anywhere.  Not that anyone should trust Russia Today, the Russian government's main international propaganda tool, as a credible news source on any subject key to Russian foreign policy.

She is a waste of time as are a few others that just came on the scene.  We need a person with experience and integrity

winetarelliwinetarelliMember
flwino posted:
bman posted:
mimik posted:

https://www.rt.com/usa/448632-...-negative-reactions/

Happy to see her as a candidate, but she's not going anywhere.  Not that anyone should trust Russia Today, the Russian government's main international propaganda tool, as a credible news source on any subject key to Russian foreign policy.

She is a waste of time as are a few others that just came on the scene.  We need a person with experience and integrity

Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobacher would both be fine selections. As would Beto; but, while his inexperience might actually be a benefit in 2020, it would be a hindrance in 2021. I like Biden, too. But I think he is too old for a hopefully-8-year gig. 

Come the General Election, I’d support a rabid porcupine over the current occupant of the WH (or Pence or any of their enablers). But regarding the Primary, there are several people running for the job whom I have serious reservations about. (Or worse.) 

bmanbmanMember
winetarelli posted:
flwino posted:
bman posted:
mimik posted:

https://www.rt.com/usa/448632-...-negative-reactions/

Happy to see her as a candidate, but she's not going anywhere.  Not that anyone should trust Russia Today, the Russian government's main international propaganda tool, as a credible news source on any subject key to Russian foreign policy.

She is a waste of time as are a few others that just came on the scene.  We need a person with experience and integrity

Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobacher would both be fine selections. As would Beto; but, while his inexperience might actually be a benefit in 2020, it would be a hindrance in 2021. I like Biden, too. But I think he is too old for a hopefully-8-year gig. 

Come the General Election, I’d support a rabid porcupine over the current occupant of the WH (or Pence or any of their enablers). But regarding the Primary, there are several people running for the job whom I have serious reservations about. (Or worse.) 

Washington Post comment today on Russia Today and Gabbard:

"RT, the Russia-funded news network, has run a series of glowing pieces about Gabbard, content that dredges up painful liberal memories of Russian propaganda boosting the 2016 Trump campaign.

“Establishment figures on both Right and Left are scrambling to smear the antiwar congresswoman with impeccable identity-politics bona fides,” read a typical RT dispatch this weekend."

R RothkoMember

As much as I hate to say it, I think that the White House was in a bit of a conundrum about what to serve at the Clemson event.  If you serve caviar, foie gras and filet mignon, you will get criticized for feasting in luxury as 800,000 federal employees are being forced to go to food banks.  If you serve McDonalds, pizza, etc., you come off as being a cheapskate and diminishing the grandeur of the White House.

I don't know why they couldn't have tried something in-between.  Maybe some gourmet sandwiches, salads, hors d'ouevres, etc.   Are the White House chefs part of the shutdown?

Still, given the choices, they elected to go low.  Cold fast food served on silver plates...  

I'm sure those top athletes appreciated the opportunity to dine on filet-o-fish sandwiches and other fine fare.

N napacatMember

Oh what a great move by the President to deny the use of our aircraft for Pelosi's overseas trip.  Bet her eyes got a little wider when she learned.  They need to show up to the table.

Trump should have the SOTU anyway and play a video of Obama, Clinton, Schumer and other democrats calling for a wall / stronger border security in the past.

bmanbmanMember
napacat posted:

Oh what a great move by the President to deny the use of our aircraft for Pelosi's overseas trip.  Bet her eyes got a little wider when she learned.  They need to show up to the table.

Trump should have the SOTU anyway and play a video of Obama, Clinton, Schumer and other democrats calling for a wall / stronger border security in the past.

Do you have an issue with him divulging that she was going to Afghanistan, thereby putting her and the military and other staff that were accompanying her at risk?

He can have the SOTU anywhere he likes, just not in the House.

Also, you are forgetting that Trump had agreed to sign the necessary legislation - that McConnell and the rest of the Republicans and Democrats had negotiated - until Fox News got all up in his face about it.  As he himself said - on live TV no less - he owns the shutdown and only he can end it!

mimikmimikMember
Rothko posted:
flwino posted:

Colds only last 7 days as per an old wives tale

I find it takes 9 days:  three days to come down with it; three days to have it; and three days to get rid of it.

 

I miss my youth.

The days of the 3 day cold are long gone, with all the crazy viruses and mutations thereof that circulate these days.

N napacatMember
bman posted:
napacat posted:

Oh what a great move by the President to deny the use of our aircraft for Pelosi's overseas trip.  Bet her eyes got a little wider when she learned.  They need to show up to the table.

Trump should have the SOTU anyway and play a video of Obama, Clinton, Schumer and other democrats calling for a wall / stronger border security in the past.

Do you have an issue with him divulging that she was going to Afghanistan, thereby putting her and the military and other staff that were accompanying her at risk?

He can have the SOTU anywhere he likes, just not in the House.

Also, you are forgetting that Trump had agreed to sign the necessary legislation - that McConnell and the rest of the Republicans and Democrats had negotiated - until Fox News got all up in his face about it.  As he himself said - on live TV no less - he owns the shutdown and only he can end it!

I actually don't know if the Afghan part of the trip was meant to be a secret or not.

I am aware that there was some agreement on his part to sign...but can always change his mind for whatever reason.

bmanbmanMember
napacat posted:
bman posted:
napacat posted:

Oh what a great move by the President to deny the use of our aircraft for Pelosi's overseas trip.  Bet her eyes got a little wider when she learned.  They need to show up to the table.

Trump should have the SOTU anyway and play a video of Obama, Clinton, Schumer and other democrats calling for a wall / stronger border security in the past.

Do you have an issue with him divulging that she was going to Afghanistan, thereby putting her and the military and other staff that were accompanying her at risk?

He can have the SOTU anywhere he likes, just not in the House.

Also, you are forgetting that Trump had agreed to sign the necessary legislation - that McConnell and the rest of the Republicans and Democrats had negotiated - until Fox News got all up in his face about it.  As he himself said - on live TV no less - he owns the shutdown and only he can end it!

I actually don't know if the Afghan part of the trip was meant to be a secret or not.

I am aware that there was some agreement on his part to sign...but can always change his mind for whatever reason.

Travel by politicians and senior officials to areas of conflict is always a secret.  I know, I worked in several similar areas over my 30 year diplomatic career.  Trump crossed yet another line by revealing that.

And there was not "Some" agreement, there was an agreement or McConnell would never had had the Senate pass the legislation. That's why he won't bring anything to the floor unless Trump agrees in advance to sign it, Trump made him look stupid by changing his mind.  Which is of course his prerogative, but his inability to think for himself rather than following the lead of Fox News is what has led to this debacle and many others.  Sad!

Last edited by bman
purplehazepurplehazeMember

Thanks, bman, for saving me the distaste of having to respond directly to trump's resident WS booster.  And governing by "changing his mind for whatever reason," is exactly what's been going on for 2 years down here.  The whatever reason was the disapproval of his TV friends.  There is no one left with any wisdom to counsel the orange menace.  He'll have to rely on Coulter, Hannity et al. for guidance going forward.  God help us.  

PH

 

bmanbmanMember
purplehaze posted:

Thanks, bman, for saving me the distaste of having to respond directly to trump's resident WS booster.  And governing by "changing his mind for whatever reason," is exactly what's been going on for 2 years down here.  The whatever reason was the disapproval of his TV friends.  There is no one left with any wisdom to counsel the orange menace.  He'll have to rely on Coulter, Hannity et al. for guidance going forward.  God help us.  

PH

 

Just being my usual ever-helpful self.......  

G g-manMember
mimik posted:
Rothko posted:
flwino posted:

Colds only last 7 days as per an old wives tale

I find it takes 9 days:  three days to come down with it; three days to have it; and three days to get rid of it.

 

I miss my youth.

The days of the 3 day cold are long gone, with all the crazy viruses and mutations thereof that circulate these days.

yea, anecdotal, but my cold this year was one of the worst I've ever gotten.

winetarelliwinetarelliMember

Bman, PH, 

Napa’s gotta be trolling. 

Meanwhile, I’m wholly disgusted with Barr. And it looks like he is going to be the next AG.  It is almost fortuitous for him that this shutdown is happening.  Were it not, I think a lot more attention would be being paid to his deeply disturbing answers to many questions.  Including his refusal to commit to releasing the Mueller report.

And Rudy is now openly admitting to collusion (or not denying) and saying but ‘the President didn’t commit a crime’.

purplehazepurplehazeMember

Rudy is preparing the endgame for the dumpster.  Just more goalpost moving.  This latest blathering from Ghouliani leads me to believe that the cabal infesting our WH has a sense of what's on the horizon for them.  

I'm with you on Barr, but I'm not too worried about Mueller's report.  One way or the other, it'll be seen by a patriot somewhere and will see the light of day.  

PH

InsightInsightMember
purplehaze posted:

Thanks, bman, for saving me the distaste of having to respond directly to trump's resident WS booster.  And governing by "changing his mind for whatever reason," is exactly what's been going on for 2 years down here.  The whatever reason was the disapproval of his TV friends.  There is no one left with any wisdom to counsel the orange menace.  He'll have to rely on Putin, the Russian oligarch mafia, Coulter, Hannity et al. for guidance going forward.  God help us.  

PH

 

FIFY

MKGA - Make Kompromat Great Again

Last edited by Insight
InsightInsightMember
napacat posted:
flwino posted:

Can't believe that our resident Orangeman booster watches so much Fox news that he can't see straight, or can use the intellect that God gave him.

Thanks Bman for the comment on secret trips

 

 

You Sir, are a moron.  

Pipe down, snowflake.  Ya boy Putin's Bitch has had an amazing and historical past couple of weeks, and no doubt for all the right reasons!!!  The majority of the country is not blaming him for the partial government shutdown.  No one in his campaign committed any collusion with Russians.  And there's no evidence whatsoever (e.g. through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents) that he committed obstruction of justice.  It's only right that someone who has led such a righteous and clean life (from both a professional as well as family perspective) should be rewarded for his piety, humbleness and willingness to help those in need.  How dare Mueller and the Deep State keep bullying those who worked with Putin's Bitch into falsely admitting to criminal activities?!!?

/sarcasm  

 

Last edited by Insight
W wine+artMember
ProSys posted:
napacat posted:
flwino posted:

Can't believe that our resident Orangeman booster watches so much Fox news that he can't see straight, or can use the intellect that God gave him.

Thanks Bman for the comment on secret trips

 

 

You Sir, are a moron.  

Pipe down, snowflake.  Ya boy Putin's Bitch has had an amazing and historical past couple of weeks, and no doubt for all the right reasons!!!  The majority of the country is not blaming him for the partial government shutdown.  No one in his campaign committed any collusion with Russians.  And there's no evidence whatsoever (e.g. through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents) that he committed obstruction of justice.  It's only right that someone who has led such a righteous and clean life (from both a professional as well as family perspective) should be rewarded for his piety, humbleness and willingness to help those in need.  How dare Mueller and the Deep State keep bullying those who worked with Putin's Bitch into falsely admitting to criminal activities?!!?

/sarcasm  

 

All excellent points. I would add Putin’s Poodle has also defeated ISIS, eliminated the nuclear threat in North Korea and strengthen our relationships with our allies in Western Europe, Canada and Mexico. I’m also comforted that the self professed god fearing man never misses church services each week. 

/lies 

N napacatMember

Still better than Hillary!   How do you agree with or disregard the following:

- Deletion of 30k emails / cleaned with bleach bit after they have been subpoenaed

- Sanctuary cities

- Abolishment of ICE

- Welcome Illegal immigration 

So much more that makes zero sense to anyone.  No one could stand for the above policies and run on that and actually get elected.  You seriously don't think ISIS has been dealt a major blow? 

InsightInsightMember

Napacat, you are nothing but consistent in demonstrating yet again that you are truly dumber than you look.  HRC, despite many years and $100M spent investigating her, was never indicted, AND NEVER WILL BE INDICTED.  That train of trying to draw up equivalency of what she's done versus what Dumb Donald has done left the station a long time ago, and yet you're still enough of a mental midget to keep waiting at the platform for it, all the while trying to convince people much smarter than you that it's bound to arrive any moment now.  

Meanwhile, Putin's Bitch has federal and state indictments in his very near future (unless he miraculously wins reelection, and that would only delay most of those).  His attempts to grift his way out of those predicaments will sadly fail, and the many markers he owes to the Russians, Saudis and his other overseas sources of financing are going to topple the last vestiges of his facade of wealth.  His tenure as POTUS will be viewed as historic, but for all the wrong reasons!

Nah zdrovya!

bmanbmanMember
napacat posted:

Still better than Hillary!   How do you agree with or disregard the following:

- Deletion of 30k emails / cleaned with bleach bit after they have been subpoenaed

- Sanctuary cities

- Abolishment of ICE

- Welcome Illegal immigration 

So much more that makes zero sense to anyone.  No one could stand for the above policies and run on that and actually get elected.  You seriously don't think ISIS has been dealt a major blow? 

Napa, I took a little time to do some fact-checking on the points you make above.  The point re deletion of emails has been dealt with by PROSYS and in any case is in no way equivalent to the mounting evidence, much of it available before the election, that Trump and/or his campaign was in cahoots with the Russians to illegally influence the outcome of the election, never mind his obvious failings as a leader and a human being and model to and symbol to the world and America.  The world is laughing at him and so at your country, the negative consequences of which for the US and the world will be ever more painfully apparent as time goes on.

Here is a fact-check on Hillary's support for sanctuary cities, which you will see is much more nuanced and balanced than you suggest:  https://www.politifact.com/flo...linton-says-hillary/

I can find nothing about Hillary Clinton wanting to abolish ICE and as a Senator she voted to establish it.  Nor can I find her saying that she welcomed illegal immigration or anything like that, so unless you can find a quote of her saying that, it seems that you are either making that up or taking it from people on Fox or Breitbart or wherever else the far right resides.

In any case, even if all of the above were true, it would not begin to balance the long and short-term damage Trump is doing to your country and the world. I get that you voted for him and are afraid to admit that was a mistake, and so are struggling to rationalize your decision, but it simply is not possible for anyone with even a basic knowledge of politics or how government works to think that he is fit to be President, if not before the election, certainly now.

Last edited by bman
winetarelliwinetarelliMember
bman posted:
napacat posted:

Still better than Hillary!   How do you agree with or disregard the following:

- Deletion of 30k emails / cleaned with bleach bit after they have been subpoenaed

- Sanctuary cities

- Abolishment of ICE

- Welcome Illegal immigration 

So much more that makes zero sense to anyone.  No one could stand for the above policies and run on that and actually get elected.  You seriously don't think ISIS has been dealt a major blow? 

Napa, I took a little time to do some fact-checking on the points you make above.  The point re deletion of emails has been dealt with by PROSYS and in any case is in no way equivalent to the mounting evidence, much of it available before the election, that Trump and/or his campaign was in cahoots with the Russians to illegally influence the outcome of the election, never mind his obvious failings as a leader and a human being and model to and symbol to the world and America.  The world is laughing at him and so at your country, the negative consequences of which for the US and the world will be ever more painfully apparent as time goes on.

Here is a fact-check on Hillary's support for sanctuary cities, which you will see is much more nuanced and balanced that you suggest:  https://www.politifact.com/flo...linton-says-hillary/

I can find nothing about Hillary Clinton wanting to abolish ICE and as a Senator she voted to establish it.  Nor can I find her saying that she welcomed illegal immigration or anything like that, so unless you can find a quote of her saying that, it seems that you are either making that up or taking it from people on Fox or Breitbart or wherever else the far right resides.

In any case, even if all of the above were true, it would not begin to balance the long and short-term damage Trump is doing to your country and the world. I get that you voted for him and are afraid to admit that was a mistake, and so are struggling to rationalize your decision, but it simply is not possible for anyone with even a basic knowledge of politics or how government works to think that he is fit to be President, if not before the election, certainly now.

So. Well. Put. 

W wine+artMember
winetarelli posted:
bman posted:
napacat posted:

Still better than Hillary!   How do you agree with or disregard the following:

- Deletion of 30k emails / cleaned with bleach bit after they have been subpoenaed

- Sanctuary cities

- Abolishment of ICE

- Welcome Illegal immigration 

So much more that makes zero sense to anyone.  No one could stand for the above policies and run on that and actually get elected.  You seriously don't think ISIS has been dealt a major blow? 

Napa, I took a little time to do some fact-checking on the points you make above.  The point re deletion of emails has been dealt with by PROSYS and in any case is in no way equivalent to the mounting evidence, much of it available before the election, that Trump and/or his campaign was in cahoots with the Russians to illegally influence the outcome of the election, never mind his obvious failings as a leader and a human being and model to and symbol to the world and America.  The world is laughing at him and so at your country, the negative consequences of which for the US and the world will be ever more painfully apparent as time goes on.

Here is a fact-check on Hillary's support for sanctuary cities, which you will see is much more nuanced and balanced that you suggest:  https://www.politifact.com/flo...linton-says-hillary/

I can find nothing about Hillary Clinton wanting to abolish ICE and as a Senator she voted to establish it.  Nor can I find her saying that she welcomed illegal immigration or anything like that, so unless you can find a quote of her saying that, it seems that you are either making that up or taking it from people on Fox or Breitbart or wherever else the far right resides.

In any case, even if all of the above were true, it would not begin to balance the long and short-term damage Trump is doing to your country and the world. I get that you voted for him and are afraid to admit that was a mistake, and so are struggling to rationalize your decision, but it simply is not possible for anyone with even a basic knowledge of politics or how government works to think that he is fit to be President, if not before the election, certainly now.

So. Well. Put. 

Facts and truth have NOTHING to due with anything that comes out of Napa’s mouth. Reminds me of someone else. 

bmanbmanMember
mountainman posted:

Thought I would pay a visit to the WS forum, is this the old "Madder than Hell" section from 10 years ago reincarnated?

 

MM, it's great to see you back!  Hope all is well!

To answer your question, yes, pretty much. Seems almost anything goes here. It's a good outlet for whatever pisses one off and keeps it out of other threads. 

T thistlintomMember
bman posted:
mountainman posted:

Thought I would pay a visit to the WS forum, is this the old "Madder than Hell" section from 10 years ago reincarnated?

 

MM, it's great to see you back!  Hope all is well!

To answer your question, yes, pretty much. Seems almost anything goes here. It's a good outlet for whatever pisses one off and keeps it out of other threads. 

its a great place for people with TDS to vent

bmanbmanMember
thistlintom posted:
bman posted:
mountainman posted:

Thought I would pay a visit to the WS forum, is this the old "Madder than Hell" section from 10 years ago reincarnated?

 

MM, it's great to see you back!  Hope all is well!

To answer your question, yes, pretty much. Seems almost anything goes here. It's a good outlet for whatever pisses one off and keeps it out of other threads. 

its a great place for people with TDS to vent

Indeed.  We even started a TDS - Winegeek Division!

N napacatMember
flwino posted:

Napa couldn't identify "truth" even if it wore a name tag.  He for sure dispels all evidence of wrong doing by the dumpster and pals.

Now in Florida the new pal of the dumpster has fired the elections supervisors in Palm Beach and Broward as they did their best to count the votes. 

 

I called you a moron and I need to apologize to morons.  You’re dumber than I thought. 

flwinoflwinoMember
napacat posted:
flwino posted:

Napa couldn't identify "truth" even if it wore a name tag.  He for sure dispels all evidence of wrong doing by the dumpster and pals.

Now in Florida the new pal of the dumpster has fired the elections supervisors in Palm Beach and Broward as they did their best to count the votes. 

 

I called you a moron and I need to apologize to morons.  You’re dumber than I thought. 

Why don't you grow up

vintvintMember

Oh my god. We’ve regressed all the way back to the public school playground. 

How’s this for an idea?  How about  posters in this thread debate ideas, ideologies, issues and possibilities using logic, verifiable facts, humor and a dash of humility? Lose the attacks on the other guy’s character, intelligence and anything else personal that serve only to drag discourse into the gutter. 

It’s hard. I know. The first reaction is visceral. You want to go after the person, not their viewpoint. Public figures are not exactly settling a good example here. But you can do this.  You’re all intelligent, well-spoken, upstanding guys. 

Go back to your corners.  Take a deep breath.  Come out fighting, but keep it clean. No low blows. Okay? 

patespo1patespo1Member
billhike posted:
robsutherland posted:

Congratulations to Mariano Rivera the first 100% of votes entrant into the MLB HOF. 

I’m not a huge baseball fan but how many times in sports have there been as sure-fire a lock on first ballot entrance? 

I never thought I’d see the day the pompous baseball writers would do this. Well deserved. Now if they’d just rightfully put Bonds and Clemens in also.  

mangiaremangiareMember
vint posted:

Oh my god. We’ve regressed all the way back to the public school playground. 

How’s this for an idea?  How about  posters in this thread debate ideas, ideologies, issues and possibilities using logic, verifiable facts, humor and a dash of humility? Lose the attacks on the other guy’s character, intelligence and anything else personal that serve only to drag discourse into the gutter. 

It’s hard. I know. The first reaction is visceral. You want to go after the person, not their viewpoint. Public figures are not exactly settling a good example here. But you can do this.  You’re all intelligent, well-spoken, upstanding guys. 

Go back to your corners.  Take a deep breath.  Come out fighting, but keep it clean. No low blows. Okay? 

Miss you VinT. We need to share a glass in the near future. 

bmanbmanMember
winetarelli posted:

So, like, the very first person to cook Brussels sprouts with bacon. Because someone had to be the first. What do you think was his inspiration?  It seems so obvious, but once upon a time it wasn’t. And when he (or she) cooked it for the villagers, what was their response?  

I'm still wondering what the first person to eat a Brussels sprout was thinking and if they ever ate another one?   If so, he or she must have been very hungry...

T thistlintomMember

I think we have seen Twitter at its worst.  After an initial report on a group of Catholic boys who confronted and antagonized a Native American Indian in DC, which was later determined to be false, many people rushed to condemn the boys for their actions.  Not only that, people threatened these kids with violence.  And on top of that, the boys and the school received death threats and the school had to be closed.

It shows the importance of appropriate and accurate reporting, which seems to be deficient by those in the media who rush to get out stories before doing proper digging and getting the story right.  Immediacy of actions in news in the online world is causing significant problems, as seen by what has happened to these high school kids.  Overreaction by those on social media compound the problem

I was one who initially condemned these kids, and I regret doing so.  It is a lesson of waiting to get the whole picture before deciding to draw conclusions or take action.  

robsutherlandrobsutherlandMember
bman posted:
winetarelli posted:

So, like, the very first person to cook Brussels sprouts with bacon. Because someone had to be the first. What do you think was his inspiration?  It seems so obvious, but once upon a time it wasn’t. And when he (or she) cooked it for the villagers, what was their response?  

I'm still wondering what the first person to eat a Brussels sprout was thinking and if they ever ate another one?   If so, he or she must have been very hungry...

But!?! But?!? Brussels sprouts are SO GOOD!! Split and par-boil in water with a good amount of white wine vinegar, while you are doing that cook diced bacon on med-low to render a lot of the fat. Don't take the bacon all the way to crispy. Remove bacon, leaving the rendered fat and increase temp to almost smoking. Pan fry the drained sprouts until they get some nice colour and crust, throwing in the bacon near the end. You might need to add some more acid depending on taste. Really it's the acid cuttign through the richness of the bacon fat that makes the dish. And getting enough colour/crust while still having a firm tooth. You don't want mush.  

wineismylifewineismylifeMember
jcocktosten posted:
winetarelli posted:

Also, the Superbowl should start at 8pm ET so people on the West Coast can enjoy it in the evening, too. 

Not watching this year - I told FKG last night we could do whatever she wanted Super Bowl night

Wish I could get away with that.  I'd rather watch somebody open a can of tuna fish than watch the Super Bowl this year.

bomba503bomba503Member

Timing actually works great out here and one of the biggest parties of the year among some wine friends up in OC. Well over 50 folks, an embarrassingly high end high volume bottle count and enough food to feed an army with a full lamb this year among others. While it won't come close to bringing me the joy it did last year I'll be able to focus more on the food, wine and great company. Bring it on!

Last edited by bomba503
G g-manMember
robsutherland posted:
bman posted:
winetarelli posted:

So, like, the very first person to cook Brussels sprouts with bacon. Because someone had to be the first. What do you think was his inspiration?  It seems so obvious, but once upon a time it wasn’t. And when he (or she) cooked it for the villagers, what was their response?  

I'm still wondering what the first person to eat a Brussels sprout was thinking and if they ever ate another one?   If so, he or she must have been very hungry...

But!?! But?!? Brussels sprouts are SO GOOD!! Split and par-boil in water with a good amount of white wine vinegar, while you are doing that cook diced bacon on med-low to render a lot of the fat. Don't take the bacon all the way to crispy. Remove bacon, leaving the rendered fat and increase temp to almost smoking. Pan fry the drained sprouts until they get some nice colour and crust, throwing in the bacon near the end. You might need to add some more acid depending on taste. Really it's the acid cuttign through the richness of the bacon fat that makes the dish. And getting enough colour/crust while still having a firm tooth. You don't want mush.  

it just sounds like you really like bacon.

G g-manMember
thistlintom posted:

I think we have seen Twitter at its worst.  After an initial report on a group of Catholic boys who confronted and antagonized a Native American Indian in DC, which was later determined to be false, many people rushed to condemn the boys for their actions.  Not only that, people threatened these kids with violence.  And on top of that, the boys and the school received death threats and the school had to be closed.

It shows the importance of appropriate and accurate reporting, which seems to be deficient by those in the media who rush to get out stories before doing proper digging and getting the story right.  Immediacy of actions in news in the online world is causing significant problems, as seen by what has happened to these high school kids.  Overreaction by those on social media compound the problem

I was one who initially condemned these kids, and I regret doing so.  It is a lesson of waiting to get the whole picture before deciding to draw conclusions or take action.  

If you saw all of hte videos circulating, not just two of them, you'd see that the boys were antagonizing a native american indian in dc, along with  other young gals minding t heir own business walking around.

you'd also see that the native americans who approached and stood 5 feet away from the steps were surrounded by the teens.

I'd have to ask, they had adult chaperones there.  If you thought  your kids were in trouble, shouldn't you have stepped in and said something?  

I know I would respectfully ask anybody approaching any child under my care to step back.

bmanbmanMember
g-man posted:
robsutherland posted:
bman posted:
winetarelli posted:

So, like, the very first person to cook Brussels sprouts with bacon. Because someone had to be the first. What do you think was his inspiration?  It seems so obvious, but once upon a time it wasn’t. And when he (or she) cooked it for the villagers, what was their response?  

I'm still wondering what the first person to eat a Brussels sprout was thinking and if they ever ate another one?   If so, he or she must have been very hungry...

But!?! But?!? Brussels sprouts are SO GOOD!! Split and par-boil in water with a good amount of white wine vinegar, while you are doing that cook diced bacon on med-low to render a lot of the fat. Don't take the bacon all the way to crispy. Remove bacon, leaving the rendered fat and increase temp to almost smoking. Pan fry the drained sprouts until they get some nice colour and crust, throwing in the bacon near the end. You might need to add some more acid depending on taste. Really it's the acid cuttign through the richness of the bacon fat that makes the dish. And getting enough colour/crust while still having a firm tooth. You don't want mush.  

it just sounds like you really like bacon.

What g-man said! But do confess to once in my life liking Brussels sprouts. It was at Richmond Station as part of the Chef's menu. There were as small as my babfingernail, split in half, marinated in something sweet and savoury, and I ate two of them. Or two halves at least. I survived the ordeal, perhaps because they (mercifully) tasted nothing like Brussels sprouts! 

 

flwinoflwinoMember
wineismylife posted:
jcocktosten posted:
winetarelli posted:

Also, the Superbowl should start at 8pm ET so people on the West Coast can enjoy it in the evening, too. 

Not watching this year - I told FKG last night we could do whatever she wanted Super Bowl night

Wish I could get away with that.  I'd rather watch somebody open a can of tuna fish than watch the Super Bowl this year.

What brand?  I'll bring mine and we can open a good wine.  Haven't watched this game in over 20 years

flwinoflwinoMember
bman posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Agree completely.  

Like Euro Football.

have penalty kicks   Five each side.  However the normal place kicker is ineligible to punt.  Lets have some fun

G g-manMember
flwino posted:
bman posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Agree completely.  

Like Euro Football.

have penalty kicks   Five each side.  However the normal place kicker is ineligible to punt.  Lets have some fun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMfaavF1R3E

make the quarterbacks win the game =)

mneeley490mneeley490Member
napacat posted:
flwino posted:

Napa couldn't identify "truth" even if it wore a name tag.  He for sure dispels all evidence of wrong doing by the dumpster and pals.

Now in Florida the new pal of the dumpster has fired the elections supervisors in Palm Beach and Broward as they did their best to count the votes. 

 

I called you a moron and I need to apologize to morons.  You’re dumber than I thought. 

Clicky

vintvintMember
mangiare posted:
vint posted:

Oh my god. We’ve regressed all the way back to the public school playground. 

How’s this for an idea?  How about  posters in this thread debate ideas, ideologies, issues and possibilities using logic, verifiable facts, humor and a dash of humility? Lose the attacks on the other guy’s character, intelligence and anything else personal that serve only to drag discourse into the gutter. 

It’s hard. I know. The first reaction is visceral. You want to go after the person, not their viewpoint. Public figures are not exactly settling a good example here. But you can do this.  You’re all intelligent, well-spoken, upstanding guys. 

Go back to your corners.  Take a deep breath.  Come out fighting, but keep it clean. No low blows. Okay? 

Miss you VinT. We need to share a glass in the near future. 

Amen, bro

V vincentricMember
thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

patespo1patespo1Member
vincentric posted:
thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

New Orleans won the coin toss, got the ball first and lost. 

New England got the ball first and won.

50/50 results....kind of like a coin toss.  

Last edited by patespo1
G g-manMember
patespo1 posted:
vincentric posted:
thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

New Orleans won the coin toss, got the ball first and lost. 

New England got the ball first and won.

50/50 results....kind of like a coin toss.  

except we all know on an NFL coin,  that there is actually a 51/49 bias towards the side the coin that started out facing.

On an actual coin, the odds are even more biased towards the side the coin starting face position because most people dont know how to flip a coin and instead it just wobbles in the air.

add to the fact that on the law of averages those receiving the ball first have a 52% chance of winning the ball game means 

1.  you always choose to receive the ball

2. you always look to see what face the coin is and you pick the same face.

Last edited by g-man
C csmMember
g-man posted:
patespo1 posted:
vincentric posted:
thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

New Orleans won the coin toss, got the ball first and lost. 

New England got the ball first and won.

50/50 results....kind of like a coin toss.  

except we all know on an NFL coin,  that there is actually a 51/49 bias towards the side the coin that started out facing.

On an actual coin, the odds are even more biased towards the side the coin starting face position because most people dont know how to flip a coin and instead it just wobbles in the air.

add to the fact that on the law of averages those receiving the ball first have a 52% chance of winning the ball game means 

1.  you always choose to receive the ball

2. you always look to see what face the coin is and you pick the same face.

I like the NFL rules as they stand now.  If you lose the coin toss, you have a chance to get the ball.  All you have to do is stop the offence from scoring a TD. If you can't, you don't have anything to complain about beside your poor defense.  You want a chance at the ball, stop the other team.  Simple. 

V vincentricMember
csm posted:
g-man posted:
patespo1 posted:
vincentric posted:
thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

New Orleans won the coin toss, got the ball first and lost. 

New England got the ball first and won.

50/50 results....kind of like a coin toss.  

except we all know on an NFL coin,  that there is actually a 51/49 bias towards the side the coin that started out facing.

On an actual coin, the odds are even more biased towards the side the coin starting face position because most people dont know how to flip a coin and instead it just wobbles in the air.

add to the fact that on the law of averages those receiving the ball first have a 52% chance of winning the ball game means 

1.  you always choose to receive the ball

2. you always look to see what face the coin is and you pick the same face.

I like the NFL rules as they stand now.  If you lose the coin toss, you have a chance to get the ball.  All you have to do is stop the offence from scoring a TD. If you can't, you don't have anything to complain about beside your poor defense.  You want a chance at the ball, stop the other team.  Simple. 

It would be interesting to see the stats on what percentage of 'Receiving teams' in OT won.  My guess (and it's an educated guess only) is that there is an advantage to winning the coin toss.  

 

G g-manMember
vincentric posted:
csm posted:
g-man posted:
patespo1 posted:
vincentric posted:
thistlintom posted:
mangiare posted:

Does anyone think both teams should get the ball in sudden death overtime? In a championship game with 2 weeks to rest, should they not play a full quarter? 

Each team should have at least one shot with the ball.  I much rather see it end with the college version of tiebreaker rather than the NFL version.

Absoulutely Mangiare.  CFL OT rules: Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession. If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

The outcome of the Pats game is a joke, as is the other.  Between the bad/missed calls that were game changers in the final minutes of the game and the coin toss for a single team to get the receiving advantage, the result is that 'best two teams' going to the Superbowl is simply a flawed concept at best.  

The sudden death OT approach of the NFL is the equivalent of giving one European football, a.k.a. soccer, 5 penalty kicks and if they get any, they win.  Beyond stupid.  

Sadly, all that will be remembered if Pats win again is how great Brady was, not the missteps that got them to the game.  Would be better if the team that wins got there of its own accord (without refs determining the outcome) and in on a level OT playing field. 

 

New Orleans won the coin toss, got the ball first and lost. 

New England got the ball first and won.

50/50 results....kind of like a coin toss.  

except we all know on an NFL coin,  that there is actually a 51/49 bias towards the side the coin that started out facing.

On an actual coin, the odds are even more biased towards the side the coin starting face position because most people dont know how to flip a coin and instead it just wobbles in the air.

add to the fact that on the law of averages those receiving the ball first have a 52% chance of winning the ball game means 

1.  you always choose to receive the ball

2. you always look to see what face the coin is and you pick the same face.

I like the NFL rules as they stand now.  If you lose the coin toss, you have a chance to get the ball.  All you have to do is stop the offence from scoring a TD. If you can't, you don't have anything to complain about beside your poor defense.  You want a chance at the ball, stop the other team.  Simple. 

It would be interesting to see the stats on what percentage of 'Receiving teams' in OT won.  My guess (and it's an educated guess only) is that there is an advantage to winning the coin toss.  

 

I gave it, it's 52% chance of winning the game if you win the coin toss

C csmMember
vincentric posted:

It would be interesting to see the stats on what percentage of 'Receiving teams' in OT won.  My guess (and it's an educated guess only) is that there is an advantage to winning the coin toss.  

 

I didn't say there wasn't an advantage.  There clearly is, otherwise some people would pick going on defence if they win the toss.  That is 100% of the time choice to go on offence.

I just don't like people portraying it as both teams not getting a "chance" to have the ball.  They do.  Stop the other team on defense and you get the ball and the advantage flips to you.  It's even better that you are able to win with a FG, not a TD.  The CFL/College rules are a little too gimmicky for me, even if they are exciting. 

Last edited by csm
bmanbmanMember
robsutherland posted:

The escort at the table next to me REALLY knows her wine and just had a five minute conversation with the somm while her "Date" for the night looked on flabbergasted and totally lost. It was really hard not to laugh or join the conversation. 

I'm tempted to ask how you know she's an escort.....

robsutherlandrobsutherlandMember
bman posted:
robsutherland posted:

The escort at the table next to me REALLY knows her wine and just had a five minute conversation with the somm while her "Date" for the night looked on flabbergasted and totally lost. It was really hard not to laugh or join the conversation. 

I'm tempted to ask how you know she's an escort.....

I'm eating at Picasso in Vegas bman. It's a guess but certainly not a reach... They don't know each other and she ordered '89 joly, a 5 puttanos for the fois and then a columbo for the venison. Her date (and I) were both drooling after (for I believe different reasons).

bmanbmanMember
g-man posted:
robsutherland posted:

She's also wearing a one piece pants-suit with a halter top and her breasts have fallen out twice so...

#winning =)

Thanks for the morning giggle!

We ate at Picasso a few years back. Reservation was for when they opened, and on the advice of some here, we were there 5 minutes early so we could get the patio table closest to the fountains, and we brought our own bottle: a Mollydooker Carnival of Love, since it was our anniversary and it's one of our faves.  The (French) server acted as if it was nuclear waste but the somm got it and comped us the corkage, if memory serves! 

Don't recall seeing any hookers but then again, we were outside with our backs to the other tables. 

doubleddoubledMember
thistlintom posted:

Texas which has some of the tougher voter ID laws has found 95,000 non-citizens on the voter rolls of which 58,000 have voted.  If Texas has that many, than I would bet states with less strict laws have a lot more.  I would suggest this is a problem that should be dealt with by all states.

Link to info?

bmanbmanMember
thistlintom posted:

Texas which has some of the tougher voter ID laws has found 95,000 non-citizens on the voter rolls of which 58,000 have voted.  If Texas has that many, than I would bet states with less strict laws have a lot more.  I would suggest this is a problem that should be dealt with by all states.

The 95,000 are the numbers on the voter rolls going back to 1996 who were on any voter roll in any election,  and the 58,000 who voted were those who voted in any election over that period.  The 95,000 represents a little more than half a percent of the 16 million registered votes and so the 58,000 represents maybe a third of a percent. 

So, not to say that there is no problem, but in most systems, especially once that involves maybe a million or more officials in thousands of jurisdictions over dozens of elections over 22 years, I think an error rate of a third of a percent is not such a big deal, especially considering there are so many in the US who may think they are entitled to vote because they have been in the country for years.  

More info here: More

 

W wine+artMember
thistlintom posted:

Texas which has some of the tougher voter ID laws has found 95,000 non-citizens on the voter rolls of which 58,000 have voted.  If Texas has that many, than I would bet states with less strict laws have a lot more.  I would suggest this is a problem that should be dealt with by all states.

This report is being shredded across Texas as being far too shallow in its reporting and currently has no value with much, MUCH more in-depth investigation. The Secretary of State also has no ability to take action. Only county officials have such.

Numerous reports even included in this mornings local news are showing how invalid this report is. This report is pulling information from people with a drivers license. Texas has over 50,000 people ever year become naturalized citizens. That is over 50,000, per year! The records pulled for this report was from all ( decades) open records. There is zero correlation between obtaining a drivers license and becoming a naturalized citizen. 

Needless to say, there needs to be much more investigation, plus county officials don’t use a drivers license as proof of citizenship. It is only one of the ways to identify you are the person on the official county roll before voting. 

W wine+artMember
wineart 2 posted:
thistlintom posted:

Texas which has some of the tougher voter ID laws has found 95,000 non-citizens on the voter rolls of which 58,000 have voted.  If Texas has that many, than I would bet states with less strict laws have a lot more.  I would suggest this is a problem that should be dealt with by all states.

This report is being shredded across Texas as being far too shallow in its reporting and currently has no value with much, MUCH more in-depth investigation. The Secretary of State also has no ability to take action. Only county officials have such.

Numerous reports even included in this mornings local news are showing how invalid this report is. This report is pulling information from people with a drivers license. Texas has over 50,000 people ever year become naturalized citizens. That is over 50,000, per year! The records pulled for this report was from all ( decades) open records. There is zero correlation between obtaining a drivers license and becoming a naturalized citizen. 

Needless to say, there needs to be much more investigation, plus county officials don’t use a drivers license as proof of citizenship. It is only one of the ways to identify you are the person on the official county roll before voting. 

P.S. it was also reported today that the so called 58,000 were not all in the last election. This was a number from all current data which includes numerous election data going back to the 1990’s. Trash in, trash out at this point. 

T thistlintomMember

I know that the 58,000 votes are over a couple of decades, but as I read it it was 58,000 different voters, not 58,000 votes in total, which is still significant.

I'd be interested to see more information on this, maybe the number of non-voters are less than the report, but if thousands of votes are invalid, then that is a problem in my mind, especially since there have been some pretty close votes in some races, such as Al Franken's initial victory. 

My concern about this is that Texas is relatively strict in voter laws, and many other states are much more lax.  We should do all we can to ensure that only valid votes are counted.

Last edited by thistlintom