TBayXXXVII

You're right, but not completely. Democrats just jacked that tax up last year, didn't they?

Yes, in a thread about tariffs where people are talking about costs of products increasing (or not), because of federal involvement, you just threw in a ho-hum "my electric bill went up", because that was supposedly on topic. Everything you type, always leads back to Trump's fault. You even did with your electric bill. Murphy limits the supply of energy under the guise of "renewable energy" (lol... wind energy), and prohibits nuclear (which is very environmentally friendly). There was no reason at all for this bill. Yet, if Trump's measures do increase electric bills in NJ, you'll blame him instead of the guy who actually caused the problem in the first place. Again, yeah, I think I got the gist of it right.

A lot of NJ's gas price issues are thanks to the wonderful elected democrats. They had the votes to pass the gas tax bill in 2016 even if Christie vetoed it, so Christie negotiated for other tax breaks... breaks that the dbag in chief Murphy put an end to... oh, and then he jacked up the gas tax by himself in 2024, without putting it to a public vote. He also conveniently decided to "extend" the bill to 2029. It's designed to do exactly what he did. He extended it without any ballot measure as a ho-hum. At the time, his objective was to a) if a Democrat wins this year, give them the opportunity to do what he did... just extend it or b) Allow the NJ DNC to use gas prices as a hammer for a Republican (if he wins this year), when he's up for re-election. This, just like the electricity costs, are self inflicted. None of that falls at the feet of any person at the federal level.

Where, that you put a left-wing article basically saying that it was someone else's fault and not Murphy's? Where you're letting it linger out there so that people think that it was about Trump? All in the name of climate change? Again, you're going to blame Trump if it goes higher, because of what Murphy did? You're setting it up to be Trump's fault because of a Democrat governor making a stupid policy. On top of that, you're going to blame Trump again (if Sherrill wins), because your taxes are going to go up, just so that she can follow through on her campaign promise to lighten your burden on the bull crap energy bill that Murphy enacted. No, I think I have the gist of it right.

In other words, you were trying to gaslight. You were trying to give the impression that Trump's policies were causing your electric bill to go up, when it was in fact, "solely" (even though you want to pretend it isn't), caused by the governor. But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that Murphy doesn't garner 100% of the blame... let's call it 50%. The other 50% would fall on PSE & G. In NO WAY would NJ's energy costs fall at the feet of Trump or his policies (like you wanted to imply by omitting this pertinent information). Now... you're just trying to deflect. I don't need to chill, I'm just calling you out for being full of crap.

Then why bring up the cost of your energy bill? That cost is up, solely due to the Governor's policies.

You're saying that Phil Murphy's bill to force NJ into 100% renewable energy a ending nuclear service is Trump's fault?

I'm not sure I understand your issue. He's right.

I agree to an extent. The problem is that there needs to be a distinction on where the/a line is. If a random person or government employee is walking around with a MAGA shirt or Guys for Kamala, nothing should happen to either... but we know that's not what happened. If a random person or government employee, condones violence, they need to be fired.

I agree that all Muslims aren't martyr's in waiting, and just want to live a peaceful life. What needs to happen with them, black folks, and other minorities is for people in those communities to get up and say, "this needs to stop". They need the white liberal to stop babying them. They need the white liberal to stop white knighting to protecting them. No one has a problem when white people are committing crimes, getting arrested and going to jail. No one is yelling out "due process", no one is yelling out for profiling. More white people every year commit more crimes than any other race. Why are we ok with holding white people accountable, but seem to struggle with holding others? Stop making excuses them. Heck, there were towns and counties in Texas that voted straight red to protect the border. What happened? Liberals said they didn't understand or that they were ignorant. Why? Because those people felt that immigrants should come here legally? Black people are called Uncle Tom's who side with Republican's. Why? Because they think black criminals give other blacks a bad reputation? The reason is because of people like you making excuses for them. Now, you can choose to support excuses by continually voting for people who race bait to push that agenda and national message, or you can keep calling everyone else a racist, because that's what you are and can't figure out why.

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with Kirk, have at it, no one should lose their jobs over it (though, some have for agreeing with him). I do think there's a difference between disagreeing with someone and cheering on their death. Cheering for someone's death is essentially carrying on the violent rhetoric that everyone says should stop. If you just say, "violent rhetoric should stop", but no one does, what's the point in saying it?

Looks like they have an argument, somewhat, based on that article. People see a link, see it's referenced, but don't bother to click on the website. That in turn, reduces foot traffic and limits the income generation stream. Now, if that something they can sue for? Not sure, but I think they have an argument for the situation.

I don't know if that's better or worse than Russia Collusion.

So you're saying that a follower of a right-wing extremist killed someone, who you think is a right-wing extremist, because your right-wing extremist wasn't far right enough?

LOL, my point was, why give up something for a guy who they'll have to cut (and possibly take a cap hit), for 3 months when the backup they have isn't really any worse? Also, you'll have to pay what is remaining of his $27.5M base pay. Not sure how that's going to work when they're only $11M under the cap.

Browning is just as good as Cousins is at this point in time. Plus, they'd have to trade for Cousins, he's still on the Falcons roster.

Maybe. They're doing a VERY poor job of protecting their investment. I'm am amazed at how much they've spent on a roster that can't protect their QB and can't stop even the Jaguars offense.

It's worse in 2 QB leagues. Ugh. I have him and Stroud as my starters. Not easy to get 2 quality starters and backup. I'll be going with Stroud and Young for a couple months, it looks like. I'll try to pick up Browning, but we'll see. Have Dillon Gabriel. Maybe he gets the job soon and I have options.

This guy still doesn't realize that he's the problem.

I think Jerry Jeudy is and will always be what Jerry Jeudy has been. Big games, no games. I don't this or any one other game changes that. I don't think it's game/team/QB dependent, I just think Jeudy takes plays and yes, even games, off. He's always on my DND list. I won't even draft him as a WR5. I think that's the case, but I'm thinking it varies based on the caliber of the player.

LOL, GC left still doesn't realize they are actually the problem.

Irony at its best.

What, they couldn't have shot him in the leg???!!!!???!!! Flipping ICE agents... they act as judge, jury, and executioner!!!!

I didn't watch the game, as the Bucs were on at the same time, so I had no frame of reference. My initial thought was to say, "Isn't this Jerry Jeudy every week/year?", but I figured I'd check it out. Looks like in the first half, the Brown only had the ball 3 times and one of them was a 3 and out that lasted 58 seconds. Anyway, on the first drive, the TD drive, he was targeted twice and both times a pass interference penalty on third down that kept the drive going. The 3-play drive he wasn't targeted. On the final drive of the half, he had 1 target. So yeah, I understand your point. On the first and third drives, they had 27 plays and he was targeted only 3 times. I do understand the lack of production due to the penalties, but still, only 3 targets? Of those 27 plays, there were 19 passes. This is the target share of those pass attempts (note, it totals 18. pro-football-reference.com has 1 pass with no target. My guess is a throw away [it was the last play before the FG attempt]). Player Tgt Harold Fannin 5 David Njoku 4 Jerry Jeudy 3* Cedric Tillman 3 Dylan Sampson 2 Isaiah Bond 1 * 15.8% target share In the second half, Flacco had 31 pass attempts, here's that target share: Player Tgt Harold Fannin 7 Jerry Jeudy 7 Dylan Sampson 6 Cedric Tillman 5 David Njoku 3 Jerome Ford 2 Jamari Thrash 1 So, while the stat sheet shows 8 targets, there was really 10. Still though, to your point, most of the work was done in the 2nd half (5 of the 7 in Q4). In the end, while Flacco had 45 attempts, he threw the 47 times... of which, 10 went Jeudy's way, so 21.3%. For reference, Joe Burrow had 652 pass attempts last year, of which, 175 went to Ja'Marr chase (DPI's unknown), which is 26.8%. The Lions had 551 pass attempts, 141 went to St. Brown, so 25.6%. I think the data supports your claim. If the Browns threw the ball 47 times, you'd think Jeudy would've gotten at least 2 more targets and possibly he'd have been more involved throughout, not just mainly the fourth quarter. One caveat though, Jerry Jeudy is an enigma. I don't know how much of this is his fault. He's invisible sometimes, by his own accord.

It's not only him. Politicians and media, still echo that. Despite that, they don't think they're the problem.