bmags

That was written last year.

Except they didn't, and if even if they had, that would not be a sign that they are running the worst campaign in history, as clinton did not spend the rest of her political career leading a bunch of conspiracy theorists that the sitting president was not american, a muslim, and also a kenyan anti-colonialist. We all know anti-colonialism is terrible and anti-american, but pro-authoritarianism is the real american. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix...shful-thinking/ Not true.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Sep 16, 2016 -> 12:57 PM) I literally don't give a f*** about what Hillary Clinton's position on gay marriage was before even 5 minutes ago. It doesn't matter. I think it does matter that you changed it when it mattered. It mattered that Obama changed before 2012, but it was frankly more important that he refused to defend DOMA even when he was in his waffle stage. Jenks wants to play that it's hypocritical to support gay marriage now if you ever have been gainst it. But as someone who supports and supported gay marriage and pressured people to support gay marriage, it would be hypocritical for me to not help the party who helped legalize gay marriage to finish the process, then to help elect donald trump, who may have believed in gay marriage before, but now Trump's opposition to it is a part of his campaign. That matters a lot more. I think opposition to gay marriage is a bigoted stance. Doesn't mean it's irredeemable if you reverse and actively support it. Life is full of moments where your eyes are opened up and you change course.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 16, 2016 -> 12:06 PM) I don't think the people on the left who now support Hillary despite her flop flop on gay marriage ever believed gay marriage was a "positionable" argument. It was axiomatic that the right existed and there was no debate about it. It wasn't an issue that someone should be forced to "believe" in. In 2004 George Bush and republicans put gay marriage ban amendments on the ballot to help drive up republican support at the polls and it worked tremendously well. IN 2012 Democrats put a lot of gay marriage liegalization amendments on the ballot and it worked very well. in 8 years the shift was incredible and dramatic. How you think liberals are unaware that people changed their mind is very peculiar. In the 1990s, gay marriage wasn't even the focus within the gay community, and it took a very awesome group of people to build a movement in the courts and public influence to create the groundswell. There are very few politicians or people that exist in the country that were "right all along", and the poeple who were deserve credit, not revising history to believe that EVERYONe was on the right side.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 16, 2016 -> 11:58 AM) I'm not comparing the stupidity of the underlying original position or the severity in which either person believed in their original position. The fact is both were against something before being for it. It's a classic flip flop. And he's not the only one that has done it. Trump continuing to assert the Breitbart conclusion that Hillary started it is irrelevant to what I was pointing out. Then literally nothing cannot be compared. I used to believe that MacArthur should have continued on into China but now I think that is ridiculous. So basically, I'm donald trump.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 16, 2016 -> 11:42 AM) ah, yes, #itsdifferent Plenty of people in the last 10 years were very much pro-gay marriage. I'm not exactly comparing someone's views from the 20's or whatever to today. This was in the recent past. She went on a talk show with a well known gay person and told that person she shouldn't have the legal right to be married. Of course she later "saw the light" when it became politically advantageous. And now she pretends like that never happened and she wants credit for being on the "right" side. Yes, the birther s*** was nonsense, and Trump was stupid for ever backing it, but now he's publicly stated that he's over it. So, like Hillary, we should all be satisfied that he's on the right side now, regardless of what an awful person he is. This really isn't a tortuous attempt to compare the two. It's comparing the reactions that the respective supporting sides have for their douche/turd sandwich candidate. It seems justified for one, but not the other. It is different. It is absurd to think otherwise. I refuse to give up critical thinking so that you can feel independent about being critical of Hillary Clinton. You want to criticize her for being connected to the DOMA? Go ahead. You want to use that to say it's not so bad that Trump stoked conspiracy theories about an indisputable fact because he liked the power it gave him from the insane twitter base full of idiots? And believed this as recently as January, 5 years since it was disproven and didn't even need to be? And he stoked repeatedly from hoax experts? Sorry, different issue, try harder. "Sure, fine, he stoked rumors that the earth didn't revolve around the sun, but Mike supported invading the Iraq war and now is against it. SO, kinda the same, really"

Edelman is so nice just because you are like guaranteed 10pts in a ppr or .5 ppr. I love that consistency even if it doesn't have the high ceilings of others.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 16, 2016 -> 08:49 AM) Now I should point out, that is what "they" the Rams obviously must think. Not what Chisoxfn thinks. That said, in general, I am a big believer of surrounding a young player with stability, which is why if I'm drafting a QB #1 overall, I'm making sure whomever I have as his coach / OC are going to be there for a few years. You can't just cut the cord immediately. Heck, Tampa Bay went so far as to fire their HC to ensure their OC wouldn't get away from Winston (because they valued that consistency so much). But Koetter has shown he can lead young QBs. Fisher should never have been allowed another chance after last year, it's understandable with a young qb, but it's also just exacerbating a bad situation. Does anybody believe the Rams will be a threat?

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Sep 16, 2016 -> 09:30 AM) I loved Forte's value too especially if you have any type of ppr in your league. The only thing that worries me a bit is he saw 0 action on 3rd down yesterday and you'd think that's where he'd gobble up some catches. That is made up for by him being their goalline back.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 16, 2016 -> 10:36 AM) Ah come on, he just saw the light. It's ok to change your mind for political purposes when you land on the "right" side! http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/278350/hil...-marriage-2002/ Come on Jenks, are you really comparing something that is just an indisputed fact backed up with documented evidence compared to a social issue like whether to support gay marriage? How many people in this country can claim they always backed gay marriage? how many people over 30? There is no end to the evidence of unbelievably embarrassing standards of trumps that won't be tortuously compared to something Clinton has said or done in her 30 years in the public spotlight.

Forte was a major sleeper because he was downgraded because age but he was still in one of the few feature back teams in the league. I got him for a price in mid teens of rbs.

Man Snowden sporting some rock hard pecs!

edit: nobody cares Second edit: talking about nobody cares about my original comment which was regarding fantasy

Man Bills look horribly coached. I always thought Ryan was a good enough coach and deserved a second chance. But this is brutal.

Lol some of these bills decisions on 3rd and short

Were they afraid Fisher would be poached elsewhere? Man the Bills oline is not the run blockers they have been

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Sep 15, 2016 -> 05:12 PM) So Jeff Fisher is expected to get a 3 year extension from the Rams. How the f*** is that guy still employed let alone getting a 3 year extension? hahaha omg.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 15, 2016 -> 04:55 PM) I absolutely think they could require that the Padres sent back certain players in the trade or even unwind the trade (if the other team involved wanted to). They could also force cash penalties to the teams involved and/or force Padres to exchange draft picks. The teams who were on the other side of the deal were directly impacted because information was allegedly withheld, which implies, the teams may not have made the same trades had they been provided with the appropriate information. What is precedent here?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 15, 2016 -> 04:28 PM) There is a standard database accessible to all teams where a team will enter all relevant medical information about a player. The receiving team's physical doesn't cover the medical history that was intentionally withheld by the Padres to deceive teams via trade. The Padres told their trainers (multiple) to withhold the treatments the players were going through to benefit them in trades. I don't know what treatment Shields received in SD, but the Sox are noted as the team who went to the MLB and complained about this. The real difference in this case is what exactly was withheld from the White Sox and whether that information would have affected their course of action. Is this in Rosenthal's report?

You got me

They say it ain't over, but that was quite the build up for very little payoff.

Leury's speed/defense is so great, if only he brought the slightest of bats to the plate.

Let's get a walkoff. Surprisingly long game for 1-1

On the other hand this is the most interesting thing the Padres have done in 2 decades.

THE MAYOR!