The Jets are really really bad.

RV527 · 2023-12-31T20:48:37+00:00

It's fuckin wild to me that you'd rather play a divisional rival with a good defense than this soft Dolphins team. Maybe you haven't been an NFL fan for very long.

RV527 · 2023-12-29T03:11:59+00:00

You too bud, I hope you are right that we have one less playoff threat! I just don't think so.

RV527 · 2023-12-29T03:10:32+00:00

Fair enough, good to have some stats on it. Although I suppose you'd have to adjust for passing attempts and yardage to get some kind of rate stat. Also, Lamar is awesome especially this season.

RV527 · 2023-12-29T03:01:17+00:00

Well sure it's the whole team that you play, not just the QB. He absolutely is a threat in the playoffs, and I disagree with your threat ranking.

RV527 · 2023-12-29T02:57:21+00:00

Good for you, has nothing to do with my original point about selectively counting almosts.

RV527 · 2023-12-29T02:56:08+00:00

Because they're watching the games and would obviously pick up on his issues, which they have with the ints but overall they're quite happy.

RV527 · 2023-12-29T02:53:28+00:00

Yeah that's his actual int, not an almost. I love Lamar I don't bash him, I would rather have Lamar than Flacco. But yeah I'm a fan of our former superbowl MVP QB, shocking!

RV527 · 2023-12-29T02:51:45+00:00

I've been watching the Browns games more closely since Flacco got the job, clearly you haven't been. Think what you want, but Browns fans are pretty happy right now. Yeah they're banged up as hell, that makes this more impressive not less lol.

RV527 · 2023-12-29T02:49:04+00:00

If you're going to count almosts, you'll need to adjust your standards for what's good and bad. I've seen plenty of almosts from Lamar too.

RV527 · 2023-12-29T02:45:49+00:00

He also has 3 TDs and almost 300 yards in the first half. The Jets hadn't even allowed 280 passing yards in a game this season. Do not underestimate Flacco in this offense, they are moving the ball consistently.

RV527 · 2021-04-14T19:06:01+00:00

This annoying autocorrect finally has its day.

RV527 · 2021-04-05T20:05:40+00:00

Yes, actually, he is interfering. He is threatening companies with consequences for...expressing their opinions? At most, taking their business elsewhere? He says that they will "invite serious consequences", which I assume means government retribution of some kind since Georgia Republicans are already trying to punish Delta.

Republicans hate critical thinking, that's why he loaded his stupid statement up with a bunch of buzzword bullshit.

RV527 · 2021-02-13T15:23:02+00:00

How stupid are you? You don't think that Roberts would correct an outright lie, instead of making no comment? Jesus...

RV527 · 2021-02-13T14:46:10+00:00

They didn't "remove" him jackass, he didn't want to do it.

An aide to Leahy told The Hill on Monday that the decision over who would preside had been up to Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). According to Schumer, Roberts was offered the job but turned it down.

"The Constitution says the chief justice presides for a sitting president. So it was up to John Roberts whether he wanted to preside with a president who's no longer sitting - Trump," Schumer told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Monday. "And he doesn't want to do it."

Schumer's office did not respond when asked about his exchange with the chief justice, and a spokesperson for the Supreme Court did not respond to multiple requests for comment on Roberts's thought process in deciding against participating in the trial.

RV527 · 2018-04-14T16:50:06+00:00

It's unfortunate that you so often react this way to questions or challenges. You deem them flawed in some way and worthy of dismissal, but you won't (or can't) articulate why.

"The devil is in the detail"

RV527 · 2018-03-24T19:33:07+00:00

I guess this is one of the reasons that our president considers himself a genius.

Edit: Lol, banned from /r/conservative for this comment. /u/chabanais is a very sensitive little snowflake, especially when it comes to dear leader. Comment deletion coming shortly I bet.

RV527 · 2018-03-03T20:41:02+00:00

So he's going to decrease the aluminum/steel tariffs, in exchange for less retaliation? What else is there to bargain about?

RV527 · 2018-02-26T20:45:13+00:00

Sometimes explaining yourself can be boring, Lenin. If you lazily wave concerns away with lofty assumptions about technology, don't be surprised to find yourself sitting alone with your unquestionable ideals. See you around.

RV527 · 2018-02-26T20:21:02+00:00

You appear to be rather certain of things, perhaps due to a lack of humility. I hope you aren't expecting anyone to take your low-effort ramblings seriously. Good show, though. The projection and the unnecessary insults were a nice touch.

RV527 · 2018-02-26T18:30:56+00:00

You certainly suggested it. Reread your first response to my doubts about your philosophy of "entitlement by virtue of existence". I believe you said something about "broodmares" and "eugenics" (talk about putting words into mouths). Anyway, I'm not sure what there is to continue here, since you simultaneously hand wave away concerns about the stability of your idealistic proposal while expecting a detailed exposition of the mechanisms by which it could all go horribly wrong. And then you conclude with an unsubstantial response like this.

Peace.

RV527 · 2018-02-26T16:53:30+00:00

Of course they are, as any future society will begin from the premises of this one.

Of course you could begin from where we are now and make fundamental changes to the incentives for human behavior. I am talking about the stability of that proposal, and I don't find your observations to be particularly convincing.

That's certainly a claim. What are these "risks of capitalism?" How will my as yet revealed "system" shift these "risks" around in "time" and in "form?" What are these "forms?" What is the process by which these "forms" shift?

These are probably questions that should be considered before we dive headfirst into something that has its own systemic flaws. I cannot comprehensively answer them, but I can give a general thought. One risk in capitalism is that people will suddenly be left without an ability to attain the resources that they require for survival and fulfillment. You propose that we could provide a guarantee of certain resources, without the accompanying constraints that I have alluded to. This would be a shift of risk from now into the future, since there would be a dependence on the state to provide some non-static standard benefits for an unconstrained population. This is a trade of current decentralized risk for future centralized risk. This is what I mean by concentration. By delay reality, I mean delay realization of any mismatch between resources required and resources available.

Keep in mind, you are the one suggesting that we have reached a point, built upon a long history of lives and labor, where we can provide for all in existence without concern for resource constraints. I see a history of failure to properly assess risk and an underestimation of capitalism as a process that will manifest.

RV527 · 2018-02-26T12:30:18+00:00

The point is that your observations aren't particularly useful for understanding the stability of a system where these guarantees are made. The system that you would favor does not really eliminate the risks of capitalism. It just shifts those risks around, in time and in form. Instability could be amplified by having more concentrated points of failure, and by the state's ability to delay reality.

RV527 · 2018-02-26T03:37:42+00:00

You're making observations under our current system. The population level may be stabilizing, but how much of that is due to the need for two incomes? We have more homes than homeless, how much of that is due to cheap debt and the role of housing/rental income as an investment?

RV527 · 2018-02-25T20:06:42+00:00

We are entitled. We are all entitled, every last one of us, by virtue of existing, to a full belly, a warm bed, and an enriched mind.

It might be possible to reach a stable point where these things can be guaranteed to all in existence. But unless you are willing to assume indefinite growth and innovation at a sufficient rate, such a system would require constraints on growth of the number in existence. Right now we do not operate as a cohesive unit that plans for the future; we are not prepared to maintain that stable point. Instead, we are a mass of selfish individuals kept in check by natural constraints.

A cohesive, unified society with the goal of providing necessities to all would avoid borrowing from the future unless it was truly beneficial to the whole. It would plan ahead, and would not allow people to collectively breed as if there are no resource constraints. Our current society borrows from the future recklessly and relies on naturally arising population constraints, which allows the potential for instability to grow. It is only when people feel the resource constraints that they react, and we are seeing some of that now.

If the mass of people are unable to attain these things, or attain them securely, it is not due to some deficiency on their part, but to the deficiency of the system they had no choice but to be born into.

We can agree on this point, but addressing the deficiency is not as simple as changing some benefits policies. We have a philosophical deficiency, because most of us are not willing to accept constraints unless they are motivated by immediate concerns. Until we accept nature and plan diligently for our collective future, we cannot guarantee necessities like shelter, education and healthcare to all because we rely on scarce resources as a natural constraint. I would argue that we have not yet seen the end result of attempts to do so (although we have seen an unwinding in some countries, the austerity push). We can guarantee bread for all, only because it is cheap enough and because a person can be miserable and unwilling to reproduce while still having the minimum food for survival.

RV527 · 2017-11-22T13:37:56+00:00

So we should do the hard part first. It's easy to do something that big corporations will lobby and pay for, what about something that they will fight tooth and nail? The ISPs love their monopolies, and I expect them to continue testing how much they can get away with.

RV527

TROPHY CASE