TBayXXXVII

So.... yes then. How are "influencers" any different than "lobbyists"?

Maybe he meant Buffalo. After all, they're the only team that plays in NY.

He couldn't learn from Drew Brees & Sean Payton..... Wilson will probably make the Giants competent. If he gets hurt, they're toast. Now, if they draft a QB this year, he'll probably beat out Winston (who may get cut at that point), and they'll possibly have a chance to not stink.

The article is talking about SNAP and soda, right? That's what I wrote on.

It's because he's the typical Democrat. He knows it's a problem but he doesn't care because it doesn't affect. In the future, when it becomes a national public health concern, he'll use these people to champion as victims and blame the Republicans for it. This way, his party can pander to them while sitting on their faux pillar of moral superiority... ignoring the fact the fact that they were wrong in the first place. Dude, Democrats STILL, to this day, don't take the blame for slavery or the KKK... they claim that the parties switched.

Correct, I don't care what the article says. Here's what I know is fact. Soda (diet or non, just like other extra sugary drinks), like alcohol and tobacco, are not good for you. Here's another fact that I know... unhealthy eating/drinking, leads to higher rates of unhealthy bodies. Here's another fact that I know... people who are getting income from the government about 80% of them getting healthcare from the government. Did the article dispute or contradict any of those facts? Willing to bet it's "no". So, knowing all of those facts, it's common sense to me that like alcohol and tobacco products, drinks like soda (even diet), just like other artificially sweetened drinks, should should be restricted from any government assistance purchasing outlets. Why? Because tax payers are helping them survive AND supporting their health. Why should we be supporting them to be unhealthy and then pay for them to get (more expensive), medical help? Also, I've heard from other people many times over that people on SNAP are not just buying Coke or Pepsi, but a lot are buying DIET Coke or DIET Pepsi, which isn't as bad. Well, a punch in the face isn't as bad as broken leg, but they both hurt. Same applies here. Artificial sweeteners and alike, that are found in diet sodas are linked to other health conditions such as high blood pressure, liver disease, and kidney disease. All of those require extra medical costs. If these people want to drink soda, let them... they just have to use their own money. These people are free to live and make any unhealthy choices they want... we as a country don't have to give them the money do it. That's my stance. I don't care what ANY politician says. I don't care what any influencer says. I'm willing to bet that they article (from an accused right-leaning outlet), has to say on the matter when I know for a fact, that they won't dispute or disprove any fact I said earlier.

That's right, it's because I'm smarter than you. You should just shut up, sit down, and learn from what I type.

Just like you King of Irony.

Personality-wise... he may be a horrible fit, but not on the field. The Steelers want someone who makes good/safe/correct decisions. Rodgers' whole career... even "the bad ones", consist of good/safe/correct decisions.

That's fine, and I don't trust influencers any more than I trust politicians.

It's actually based in fact, but go on with your little leftist echo chamber.

I don't care about what the article says, I just have beliefs. If a person is on government assistance, then the government should have a say in how you spend the money you are given. It's an encouragement to get off of it. Also, healthcare is an issue in the sense that we're spending too much on it. The reason for that is unhealthy lifestyles and not the insurance or healthcare industry itself. So, if the government is supplying you with assistance, not only in daily living but in healthcare as well, they should have every right to restrict your spending to be healthy. Sadly, because we have dbags in government, there will always be someone who'll change the restrictions when they need to pander for votes.

The irony of a leftist calling someone's response stupid. I don't have to own anything that isn't mine to own... but, if you want to go to the actual origin on cancel culture, you'll be the one owning it. It started in liberal Hollywood in the early 90's. It was popular in the black community. Let me guess... the party's and races switched since then?

Your premise is false. You're assuming it was only righties who did that. Where I live, NJ, a very liberal state... there were less righties against them than lefties.

The Steelers want a QB who at worst, won't screw things up. That's NOT Jameis Winston.

Just more evidence that the Democrat party (leadership), is all about STILL, using black people to further their own wealth while keeping the black community down.

LOL, lefties start it, condemn the righties for following in their footsteps, and when lefties do it, it's justified again. Gotta love leftist groupthink

The Steelers are doing the right thing. If you don't have a franchise QB, don't spend $30M+ on a JAG. Save $20M, and give some rando $10M and spend that $20M on building a better team around said rando. Bide your time until you believe you can draft one. Right now, I see 5 franchise QB's in the NFL... Mahomes, Burrow, Jackson, Allen, and Herbert. I believe Burrow was the only one taken in the top 5, so teams don't have to tank, they just have to be right. Of the other 4, the team that drafted them, had to trade up to get them, so you don't even have to be a "bad" team. The Bills had pick 12 I believe, and traded up to #7 to get Allen. KC traded up from the 20's I believe, to #10 and the Ravens traded back into the 1st round to get Jackson at #32. If the Steelers think there's a franchise QB in this draft, they should be proactive in trying to get him. They're picking at #21, to get to pick 10, it should only cost a 3rd this year and a 1st and 3rd next year. From what I've read, people are all of the place on who's a 1st rd QB, who's not, and who's a top 5 pick and who's not. One could fall pretty far to where compensation might be minimal. They also might be able to get a guy later in the draft, someone like Howard, Dart, or Riley... who at the very least/worst, may be just as good as Kenny Pickett. Some may laugh, but Pickett was 14-10 as a starter with Pittsburgh and they had a winning record those 2 years and made the playoffs in one of them.

It's the typical leftist cancel culture. If they disagree with you politically, and you have control, their group think hits you financially.

You're right, he should've done what everyone else was doing... hiding it.

You're better off destroying the place and rebuilding it than you are wasting the money slow playing it. On top of that, you're getting your military personnel killed. Around 100k Russians fighting in this war have been killed. There's no way that it's cheaper, better, or planned to draw this incursion out for 3+ years, getting approximately 100k of your own people killed, spending all that money, and using all of those military resources than it would be if you leveled a few infrastructure and military installations necessary to bring Ukraine down.

If you're supposedly the 3rd or 4th best military in the world and you can't beat Ukraine and 3 days before they got any help from anyone, you're either not really trying or your military isn't that strong. If we wanted to take over Ukraine, we'd do it 3 hours... let alone 3 days. Russia's military is a joke.

If they actually beat Ukraine, they'd have all of the land. Hence, it's not a W.

We shouldn't have even been involved in this in the first place. We're choosing to help the lesser of two evils. It would be like China invading North Korea and we jump in to help North Korea because they're the ones who got invaded. The only reason we got involved in this, is because Biden is a corrupt politician who got help from Ukraine to make his son independently wealthy.