TBayXXXVII

The way to get it out of the political world is to stop restricting it all together (which includes government funding), as I said in my example with the degenerate scumbag... which is approximately 98% of all abortions. Abortions are no different than boob jobs or Lasik. It's 100% unnecessary and 100% optional. In those scenario's, the person getting the work done, is paying for it. If there are circumstances where a child or mother's life is at risk, then that's a medical judgement call by the doctor. If the first part of my scenario is the way it's handled, then the medical aspect is purely that, it's a medical issue between the doctor and the woman. There's no need to get the government involved... it's like any other personal health issue. If you want to pretend that the majority of cases like this involve Medicaid, you're not a very intelligent person. Now, if you want the degenerate scumbag to be able to claim her health is at risk, then all you're doing is bringing the government back into it. Which again, is evidence that the Democrats want to have control over women.

For sheep? Certainly. For the normal person, not so much.

I agree with your first two lines... but I was saying that people thinking that our current right-wing political environment is fascist, is a left-wing talking point. As for you last comments, is FNord one of your alias's... because that's a King Irony type of statement.

Contract structuring. It's not hard to push higher base pays to the back end of the deal freeing up more money now (if necessary), also, voidable years. Each of the 3 can have 1 year with a really high base pay to which, the contract can be re-negotiated to stretch out the deal. Jalen Hurts: $51M AAV AJ Brown: $32M AAV DeVonta Smith: $25M AAV 3 other players with $20M AAV each How did they make that work???? Their Top 6 AAV's total $171M+... Dallas' Top 6 are $127.5M. Right now, Dallas is projected to be almost $80M under the cap next year. They have plenty of flexibility to make it work.

Remember when liberals said they don't believe in open borders? Can't say that now, can they?

I don't see that as an issue.

Left-wing talking point.

100% of every proposal by Democrats, concerning abortion, involves the government paying for it. HENCE, the Democrat party being in control of women’s rights. Thankfully, Trump's SC appointees put us on the path to getting there by getting the Feds out of it and getting it at the state level. Next, hopefully, out of government control completely.

Yeah, I don't see it that way. The contracts that were out there already were Adams at $28M AAV and Hill at $30M AAV. There's no way he wouldn't have wanted around $35M, even before last season. At the minimum, he'd have been asking for $32M AAV, so waiting is going to cost him what... $12M over 4 years? That's nothing. It's not like Jefferson got $45M AAV. If that were the case, I'd agree with you.

How about this... instead of pretending that 0.01% of the cases are the norm, we let the degenerates kill their kid whenever they want, as long as they're the ones footing the bill? The government need not be involved at all. It'll go something like this: Degenerate scum bag: Yo doc, kill my kid. Doctor: Ok, that's be $1k. Degenerate scum bag: Ok, I'll be back in a couple weeks after I get the money from GoFundMe. Now, in the scenario which you described specifically, in those 0.01% of the cases, that would be a medical decision which the insurance company would pay for. BUT, that's only if we get abortion out of the political world and into the medical world. Or, do you liberals want to make sure these women need to have people like you in control of their rights?

Just not sure how you can make the claim that Jerry messed up. You have to be assuming that Lamb didn't want $35M AAV, which seems a little out of touch. I think this helps Dallas and makes it easier for Jones. Just say "Look, you're numbers are the same as his, we'll give you the same deal." Seems easy enough to me. Otherwise, just tag him the next 2 years and he can play on 1 year deals for 2 years and hope he doesn't get hurt. It'll still come out to the same money, so it wouldn't make sense for Lamb to say "No" to security.

Why, what was Lamb asking for?

Davante Adams Stefon Diggs Mike Evans Chris Godwin Keenan Allen DJ Moore Cooper Kupp Tyler Lockett Deandre Hopkins But that's just off my head. I'm sure there's more.

Not in the least.

Fair point.

Was he a "fat" 350? I'm just asking. I saw an interview a while back where Joe Thomas looked a lot smaller, but he said he was only 20 pounds lighter from his playing weight. Muscle in density is heavier than fat, so you can look a lot smaller/lighter but still be similar is weight. I haven't seen pictures or anything of Allen in a very long time.

I'm saying FNord said that, at least about Catholicism, that you agreed with initially, which took us down this road. What you said here, I am in full agreement with.

Exactly!!

See, you're conflating the two. You're saying that because some people in the religion are bad, that means the religion itself is bad. Are you applying that to the Muslim's? Do you think all Muslim's are bad because some believe in literally, killing homosexuals?

Even more so to my point. Why go through the dog and pony show of a trial to embolden his base and even more likely, make it bigger, unless you plan on putting him in jail? Even if you do, it's making the situation for the Democrat party even worse. There's no winning for the Democrats, with this trial, from a national perspective. The ONLY silver lining they might see is locally. Not really sure why they'd take this route for that, since they were going to win that district anyway... unless they were scared that they wouldn't. If they were scared that they wouldn't, what's the reason?

My question, on topic, would be... if you don't think he should go to prison, why bother with the trial? Just fine him a $1M (which is pennies compared what the DNC and Hillary got for worse), and be done with it? Why go through the kangaroo court that will only make his base stronger?

So you started off with alleged and credibly accused to definitively saying he did it... and that means you didn't convict him? Weird. If you're going to say he actually did it, then yes, I would need a picture. Yes, I know you're going to find a cartoon or stick figure picture with arrows, so save yourself the time.

Not sure how you could read his post any other way. He's condemning the religion, not the people. There a millions upon millions of religious people that practice their religion perfectly, and are not hypocrites (regardless of their religion). You see the exception and assume that's the rule and condemn the group as a whole (selectively... see FNord's post that you agreed with). If more people were practiced what their religion preached, this world would be a lot better of a place. While I am not religious in any way, I still conduct my life as if I actually believed there was a God. Through my many years of Catholic school, the teachings are basically moral decisions to help guide you on the right path... they are not whole heartedly telling you what exactly to do. There are lessons that you need to figure out for yourself. Just because I don't believe there is a God who will judge me on the decisions I made, or a devil that will torment me for the bad ones, it doesn't mean the lesson went unheard. I have no problem with any religion nor how a person observes/practices it. Just because there are hypocrites in the group, it doesn't mean they all are. Just because I think a religion might literally be based on evil (the Democrat party for example), I don't believe everyone of them are... granted, most are. I give the same latitude towards all religions. We have people here who only condemn Christianity (we'll call them Democrats), but will not condemn the Muslim religion even though they literally have a sect that practice violence. Now, as I said, many Muslims do not, as it is a peaceful religion, but there are those who do... and it's not a small amount, yet, we have those same people (again, we'll call them Democrats), who refuse to condemn them. THAT, my friend is hypocrisy. People who practice the religion for their own means are the hypocrites, not the religion itself. Those who condemn the religions, are hypocrites, not those who practice faithfully. This country was founded on religious freedom and separation from church and state. Too many people on both sides merge the two when it fits their needs, though only one will trample both when it fits their needs.

Oh, my bad. When you said he sexually assaulted women, I didn't realize you didn't meant that he was only accused of it, and not guilty of it. (yes, that was sarcasm).

Then you must not know what @Fnord's point was, even though you agreed with him. To the religious folk (of which, I am not one), God is a parent to everyone. He loves them all and gives them free will to do as they choose. When that person passes on, God judges them on their actions and punishes them. That's @weepaws point when he says God is the revenger. It's his job to punish. It's no different than a parents job. They love their kids and give them free will to do as they choose. If the child behaves poorly, the parent punishes them. It doesn't mean they don't love them any more. In fact, like God, it means they love them more... as to show the right way to act. If you think God is a hypocrite, then you must think parents are as well... possibly even you, if you punish your kids.