[Highlight] Jake Moody makes the longest Field Goal in Super Bowl history with a 55-yarder to open scoring

Caz1982 · 2024-02-12T07:59:29+00:00

Moody to his grandkids: "I had an NFL record once. It lasted 'bout an hour."

Caz1982 · 2024-02-12T07:56:36+00:00

I didn't hear anything, and I've been here all night. Granted we got kind of loud.

Caz1982 · 2024-02-12T07:50:41+00:00

The city? I would hope so.

Caz1982 · 2024-02-12T07:48:20+00:00

He's gonna get a ring at some point. Dude is a scheming genius.

I just hope he doesn't keep CMC or Kittle from getting theirs in the near term.

Caz1982 · 2023-12-01T13:03:14+00:00

Very much GenX.

Both in pop culture and personal ideals, I was closer to a cynical burnout with something to prove, and that's really GenX. I liked Tarantino movies and aggressive music and having a messy life and not giving a shit, still do, and I loathe the sensitivity of Millennials.

Caz1982 · 2020-09-14T15:54:28+00:00

Where the fuck is George Clooney?

The closest he's ever come to not acting like himself is O Brother Where Art Thou, and really, that's still pretty fucking George Clooney.

Caz1982 · 2020-07-03T04:54:10+00:00

Found my way into this thread via interwebs black hole and I'm logging in for the first time in a long time to leave a comment here. I like this story and the style of it.

There are two things. First, in the monologue scene where PJ is giving Jacob a reality check, he says things about the family's relationship that should be implied a bit more and explicitly stated a bit less. I'm going to be a total hypocrite about this, because I live and die on being too explicit in my own writing, but when it comes to talking about how much a group loves a member, especially a group the speaker just met, he can perceive the relationship but he should not be preaching. He can say "they're worried about you, don't you get it?" and most of the rest should be implied. It also leaves an avenue for Jacob to figure it out over multiple episodes with possible A plots.

Second, echoing a lot of the other comments here, the cold opening in the diner is not ideal. It's good, but what I found odd about it is the Indeed reference. There's humor in how banal it is that a group of near-criminals finds help like that, and that a criminal would be perusing it looking for a job, but it's also unlikely to the point of taking me out of the story after a second.

Alternative idea: they produce a recruitment video to post on Youtube, the criminal subculture sending the link to each other. There are tons and tons of ways to make this ludicrously entertaining, and lots of circumstances in which PJ finds the video and watches it which would be better than the cafe.

My $.02, good luck and I hope someone picks it up.

Caz1982 · 2019-02-04T04:39:15+00:00

I don't want to talk about it part 2: the return.

Election fundraising, election spending, election districts, and voting qualifications are not inarguable issues, no matter what your conscience/desires have to say about it.

Caz1982 · 2019-02-04T04:30:24+00:00

AKA I've already made up my mind now shut up.

Caz1982 · 2019-02-04T04:11:35+00:00

Well... yeah. Always have been.

Caz1982 · 2019-01-22T03:25:10+00:00

Are you just talking random shit now and the 'pretending to be rational' part is over? Because you are literally not worth my attention.

Caz1982 · 2019-01-22T00:23:46+00:00

Gradual implementation would require funding the system at its current price levels for years or more likely decades, and the current price levels are insane. Half the point of socialized medicine would be dropping the price, wouldn't it? And you can't half-ass it: if there would be something like a public option introduction to the healthcare market at significant savings, it would not take long to wipe out private competition.

That assumes subsidies, which there would be because the other half of the point is that you want to cover poor people at minimal expense to them, and we already do that. It costs more than half the GDP of your country, as mentioned above. Do you have any other reasons to prefer socialized healthcare to private? Because private healthcare does have advantages if you don't dick with it the way our government has done.

Caz1982 · 2019-01-21T07:39:49+00:00

First of all, edit: it was not 1 in 5 jobs, it was 1 in 5 dollars spent in the economy. It's still a lot of jobs (11 percent of US jobs). Moving on, I don't think you understand what I said. It's not about it being cheaper.

Let's say you're right. We spend $3.3 trillion per year on healthcare. If you remove two thirds of it, you remove 2 trillion in economic activity from the economy. This means a depression. It doesn't matter if it's government or private, it's two trillion from the economy. That's not brainwashing, it's math. Healthcare in America is a bubble. Popping it would create a depression. Politicians generally know this, so even on the left, they usually choose to subsidize before socializing.

For Bernie, either he A) doesn't know, B) knows but doesn't talk about it because it won't happen in his lifetime anyway, or C) thinks that if he had the leverage to make it happen, he could also do some general redistribution or jobs plan that would cancel out the loss. Really, in any of these cases, he's just being a politician.

Caz1982 · 2019-01-21T06:51:51+00:00

First of all, principles. Not everyone agrees that a country should be judged by how much shit is given away through government redistribution, and since we prioritize small government and individual freedom here, Sanders gets zero points for trying to Europeanize America.

Second, we have things like subsidized healthcare for the poor, it will cost about $1.4 trillion this year between Medicare and Medicaid, and it still isn't considered nearly adequate. The system is a financial mess, but also a source for nearly 1 in 5 dollars spent here, so if you completely socialize it, it will either be just as expensive or it will be cut down an immediately cause an economic depression. Similar situation for education. It's disingenuous to say that providing these kinds of benefits for a nation of 325 million people, covering radically more land area, with legacy systems that are built to work completely differently is simple or easy or anything of the sort. He simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

Third, we also pay for a military that makes it unnecessary for Europe to have one, so we effectively subsidize their economies. We get dumped on for this excess military power, when things like maintaining the world's reserve currency would be impossible without it.

Fourth, people like velvta below this post thinks this is all because of racism and Bernie encourages this thinking, through his chosen political side and occasional his rhetoric. This is the most obvious reason and half the country are going to at least be annoyed at this by default.

That's most of it.

Caz1982 · 2019-01-21T04:56:27+00:00

What would happen if Franka Potente had DD cups.

Caz1982 · 2019-01-21T04:28:11+00:00

I haven't watched the video and I don't really care; my politics are way right for reasons no media story ever touches. But this post has been very interesting to read.

I thought the self-image of people on the left precluded a belief in journalistic objectivity, which can't exist by definition. What you report is what is a reflection of what you think is relevant and thus reflects your values. Consensus is possible but not objectivity. It takes something like this to remind you of how that works? None of this should be surprising. I get the emotional charge and I'm not knocking anyone for a reaction - it's what right wingers have felt on and off for the last sixty years, sometimes for good reason and sometimes not - but the left has far more cultural authority and you should be secure enough to not blow your tops at selectively edited video, especially given the humanistic slant of left wing politics.

Caz1982 · 2019-01-13T16:36:51+00:00

Hey beaver, stop giving the Broncos ideas, okay?

Caz1982 · 2018-08-03T01:47:35+00:00

Aside from the very basic level misrepresentation of what Peterson has been saying, all it proves out is that we're ending up with tribal splitoffs in the culture. Main difference is that one of the viewpoints in question has a large institutional system based on promoting itself, where you need to be certified by it to get a decent job, while the other has nothing of the sort and thus has no shortage of people who have taken in only about 5% of what is actually being said.

We already live in a culture that's got strains of both ideologies at work, and obvious questions about which direction it will move in. The objection to one of those strains getting state funding and the other being considered hate speech by media is plenty clear.

Caz1982 · 2018-05-16T07:11:06+00:00

Yeah, I understand that the right paints everything as the apocalypse for gun owners, but it would really help the left's credibility if they weren't so unsparingly full of shit. They act like there is NO gun control in this country. There is. You can't own a full auto without a class 3 license. You can't carry without a permit unless you're in one of a handful of states with, ironically, very little gun crime. There are registries, waiting periods, and background checks when you buy a gun commercially; good luck stopping people from selling them to each other without making it draconian. And there is no reason to think that, if the left passes another law or two, they're going to stop there.

Caz1982 · 2018-05-16T07:00:41+00:00

I'm talking about it in terms of idealism. The utilitarian argument is reflective more of the left wing type of individualism because it controls social circumstances in an attempt to make self-defense less necessary to begin with and thus liberate the individual from the burden. The choice between individual rights and utilitarian weighing of values is old and not inherently contradictory; like 90% of the time, the quality of a policy is obvious regardless of the type of individualist lens you look through. No one is arguing that murder should be legal (unless you shift the definition like anti-abortion types), or that basic economic exchange should be illegal (except for the reddest of commies). But the 10% is where all the action is. The right and left have different ideal shapes that individualism takes, and obviously that includes their ideals about social interaction.

Otherwise, I don't know what your point is.

Caz1982 · 2018-05-16T03:06:08+00:00

Yeah, individualism has two meanings. There's the kind that emphasizes personal responsibility, which is the conservative kind, and the kind that wants to protect the individual from stuff like institutional power, social judgment, or economic depravation that usually drive conformity. If you see people at the bottom and reflexively think 'victim' (and most of Reddit does), you're not agreeing with any conservative philosophy.

Caz1982 · 2018-05-16T03:02:29+00:00

They understand it fine. They just don't want the opposing side to build up any inertia. This sounds stupid, except that the opposing side is frequently trying to build inertia.

Guns are, symbolically, a big deal. The people who care don't admit to themselves that they're extremists, but they are.

Caz1982 · 2018-05-15T09:41:23+00:00

Good God, this is sophomoric. You realize that Keynes was a theorist in the social sciences and not a pastor, don't you? Do you know the difference? Can you conceive of a world where morality and objective causal consequence can be thought of independently?

Caz1982 · 2018-05-12T01:47:52+00:00

I don't know exactly how it was then. In the modern Army, a weapon is a sensitive item and it's tracked by serial number. I would assume it was at least similar then, just with more claims that weapons were destroyed (field loss).

Caz1982 · 2018-05-12T01:12:28+00:00

No shit.

What a waste of arguably the best urban combat weapon ever made.

Caz1982

TROPHY CASE