TBayXXXVII

I literally quoted your post that you said that cops should be held to a higher standard... I said they are. I then supported that with examples of why you seem to have an issue of the standards, pointing out that Democrats are continually lowering standards. So, you can claim you want accountability, maybe you should want accountability for why those standards exist in the first place. You fix that problem, you'll find that the results we're seeing drop drastically.

Weird how that has happened.

... and we do hold them to a higher standard. The problem is though, that the party you devote your loyalty to, always wants to lower the standards. Example #1: Black people can't pass the BAR exam... Liberals response: Let's lower the score so they can pass. The result, more bad lawyers... most are white, because that's mostly who's in law school. Outcome: More white people are becoming lawyers than black. Liberal backlash: White people are racist... too many white lawyers. Example #2: Black people struggle with grammar... Liberals response: Let's lower the standards for grammar so that they can pass. The result, more people with bad grammar... most are white, because that's mostly who's benefitting because of the larger percentage of white people in college. Outcome: More while people getting degrees than black. Liberal backlash: White people are racist... too many white people with college degrees. Example #3: Black people (and women), can't become cops because the standards are too high... so Democrats reduce the standards so that more can pass the tests. The result, more bad cops.... most are white, because that's mostly who's enrolling in the police academies. Outcome: More bad white cops on the streets. Liberal backlash: White people are racist... too many white cops killing black people. MAYBE... just MAYBE, we stop lowering standards to allow black to qualify for things that will be more beneficial to white people, and instead, focus on the black communities putting more emphasis on education at the lower levels. Instead of pizzing away money on gender studies, CRT, climate change, and other "wah wah wah, we need....[crap that doesn't matter], we invest that on the education system at the lower levels? How about we focus on family units? How about we (Democrats), stop encouraging single-income for welfare and hence encouraging single parent households... mostly affecting black families? How about we stop the "Defund the Police" crap when most black communities are victims of violent crimes, and thus encouraging younger black kids to dislike cops? How about we stop with the identity politics and treating people the same, instead of making a victimhood classification of people? Can't do that though, because that would require people who are beholden to the Democrat party to vote Republican... so, let's just keep complaining about systemic racism (dismissing the fact that the mass majority of instances where this claim happens, comes from Democrat strong holds).

Amazing, isn't it?

I don't disagree really. Henry is a different kind of player and going from a crap team to a Super Bowl contender and that usually can invigorate a player. I think that even though he'll be 30, he still averaged over 4 ypc and still rushed for over 1100 yards and 12 td's on a team where he was the only weapon. Also, it was the least amount of touches he had in the last 4 seasons where he played a full season. He averaged 16.5 carries per game last year. Even if he drops to 12, I think with that team and OLine, he could average over 4.5 ypc. I think 13.5 for 4.7 is reasonable. The lighter workload will still yield him similar production and fresher legs. I think they all but eliminate his usage in the passing game for that reason. I don't think he gets many breakaway TD's, like he's done in the past, but I think he could quite literally have a dozen td runs of 5 yards and less. Now, in 2025? That may be a completely different story... but this year, if people are allowing him to fall, I have no problems in taking him.

I think the opposite happens. I think they added Henry to not just replace Gus Edwards, but a slight uptick in production. Edwards can't handle the workload and get the production that Henry can. Edwards is best at 10 carries per game, Henry can get 15. Plus, they still have Justice Hill and I think they still bring in someone else to tally a handful of touches a game. I think the addition of Henry is to reduce the rushing workload of Jackson.

Baltimore's offense is substantially more efficient and productive than Tennessee's, so I can see Henry getting about 60 to 70 yards rushing a game, with at least (yes, at least), 1 rushing TD a game. I think there's a legit shot that he has about 1100 yards (1200 ceiling), but well over 20 TD's (yup... like 24). I think they get into the green zone a lot and use Henry a lot, to keep Jackson from doing it. I think the addition of Henry hurts Jackson a touch. Jackson, per 17 games played, averages just over 1,000 yards rushing and 6 TD's. I think with Henry, that drops to about 600 and 3.

Remember, this is an extension, not a new deal. He already has a contract in place for 2024, 25, & 26, so those numbers don't kick in for 4 more years. Those are for years, 2027, '28, and '29.

Or it would fail because the airlines give you the option to choose a refundable ticket. Every time I've ever bought an airline ticket, they gave me the opportunity to insure my ticket to get a full refund. You do understand that the only thing this law will do is make the airlines more money and the consumer is the one paying it, right? About 1 to 2% of flights get cancelled every day. So, because of those few cancellations a day, the airlines will jack up the prices of their tickets to ensure they recoup any money the government is preventing them to get. Meaning, the government is helping the airlines charge more money, and you're thanking them for it. Brilliant!!

Has anyone tried to sue the airlines in court over this? Looks to me like if this is the case, the judge would rule in favor of the plaintiff.

Yeah, the balance is... where do you draw the line? It's always drawn in pencil. It's best to never draw it in the first place... meaning, the government doesn't get involved in the first place. I understand fully Mr. Stalin. You want the government to slowly creep into everything.

Wrong, again. It's not the governments job to control how businesses go about their day-to-day operations. In this case, how they handle refunds. The airlines CLEARLY tell you what happens if the flight is cancelled, delayed, or whatever before you by the ticket. They even ask you if this is acceptable. When you buy the ticket, you're saying "YES". Now, you want the government to step in and bail you out. Bullsh!t. If you don't like the terms, then don't buy the ticket. Flying isn't the only way to travel. NOW, if the airlines did get together and colluded on how they'd handle these things, then that's a different story. Like I said in my response to Gutterboy. If they did that, then fine, the government can step in and protect the consumer. I don't know that that's the case... do you?

Keep trying loser, that's already been covered. Honcho is scared to answer this question (I asked it twice), will you answer it? Why stop here? Since we're forcing airlines how to go about their refund policy, let's just eliminate the risk altogether. How about we let the government set the price in the first place, collect the payment, and thus guaranteeing your refund?

That's collusion and illegal. Nice try. Try again.

It's not a breech of contract because when you buy the ticket... well, at least every time I did, they specifically tell you that there's a chance your flight doesn't happen and by purchasing the ticket, you understand that, agree to it, and agree to the conditions thereafter.

I'm not saying your wrong... I'm saying the hammer shouldn't be wielded by the government to make it happen.

Yes they were given a choice. They opted for that choice when the agreed to buy the ticket. If you don't want the risk of not getting your money back, don't buy the ticket in the first place. People have plenty of choices. They can choose to drive. They can take a train. Flying isn't the only option. I'm advocating for a system where the government doesn't force a business into how they go about their day-to-day operations. Like I said, if we're letting the government dictate how airlines go about their refund policy, why not let them dictate the price? It's cost protection for the customer. Why should the customer be forced to pay $200 for a flight that just the day before, sold for $185... or better yet, another airline sold it for $150?

Yes, it can, and the protections that the airlines have decided to go with... that American's are willing to accept, was vouchers/credits. Now, if the government wants to step in and say, "You sold a ticket for $100 for this person to fly from Dallas to Detroit, and that was cancelled, then you MUST honor that, without extra costs", then I'm fine with that. That's protecting the customers purchase. Telling the company HOW they must go about it, no, I'm not ok with that. Why not just have the government set the price? How about, we just let people buy the ticket from the government instead of the airlines? That way, the customers purchase is protected from the corporation.

Safety regulations are set by the government all the time, because one of the jobs of government, is safety. Day-to-day operations on the other hand, that's completely different.

Yup, gotta love it when the government forces corporations how to run their business. Can't wait to see what else they do.

Good one.

Under 18, never. Period. Just like every other thing in this country. Over 18, do what you want... it's your body. As long as you don't force me to participate in your delusion. If any policy that is put forward that supports Under 18, then I don't care what else is in the policy, it gets 100% ignored and the answer is "No". Period. There will forever be pushback on this.

The conservative approach is quite libertarian. That's why you don't encounter what you want to hear from libertarians. Prior to 18, cosmetic changes only. Still need to use a gender appropriate bathroom (not your chosen gender), or uni-sex bathroom. Boys can NOT participate in female specific activities. PERIOD! Bullying and ostracizing will ensue if you allow it based on participants acceptance. Meaning, if you have a girls basketball team and there are 6 girls who are ok with a boy, but 3 not... the 6 will bully the 3 until they acquiesce. Once you make an allowance for one, you have to do it globally... no picking and choosing. Post 18, do what you want... who cares, it's your body. You still can't go out into society and get the rights and privilege's to the gender you chose. You don't have the right to force others to accept your choices. In both circumstances, go see any doctor you want. Because we know there are activist doctors, lawyers, and judges, all people need to do is to continue to search until you find the right one for you... confirmation bias, right? Well, you solve that problem by not allowing anyone to take pharmacological options until their adults. Libertarians believe that women should have their rights protected. If a man says he's a woman, he's still not a woman, hence he is NOT afforded the protected rights women have. They also believe that your rights don't trump someone else's rights. That's why you won't hear anything to your liking from Libertarians.

Why didn't you just blanketly come out and say "Listen to radical leftists"?