TBayXXXVII

Lots of victim blaming in this thread. I'm sure the GC lefties will defend why this is (D)ifferent. LOL

Personally, I'd have picked Skubal, but they went with Burns.

LOL

Ironically, it was Biden who pushed to have tons of black men imprisoned for smokie pot.

You mean other than the one that it actually is?

Are you saying they'll act just like Merchan? Or was that (D)ifferent?

I like Levis and Carr (to a lesser extent). As far as rookies, I like McCarthy because of the weapons and Nix because of Sean Payton.

Moron.

Last season, Love threw the ball 579 times... I think he throws over 600 with an outside shot at around 625. Why? Over the last 8 weeks of the season, when they finished 6-2, he was on a 593 attempt pace (for a season). The prior 9, when they were 3-6, he was on pace for a 567 attempt season. No only that, his rush attempt rate dropped between the first 9 and last 8, from a 59 attempt rate season to 40. I think the trajectory will be for more passing and less running (for Love, overall), as they try to use a lot more 11 personnel (they were 18th last year), and less 12 personnel (they were 3rd last year). As a team, I don't believe they'll pass more and run less per se... I think they'll use more 3 WR sets, because of the talent at WR, and become a more well rounded and efficient offense. I think both their running and passing plays will increase because I think they'll be a better team. Last year, they ran a lot of plays, ranked 12th in the league. I think this year they finish in the top 7. I think the Packers have a real shot at being a Top 5 scoring offense this year (they were 12th last year). Assuming similar metrics to last year, I think you could expect slight improvement. Personally, I think his metrics will be better. He finished as a QB5 last year in my league, and I see that as his floor for this year. I think top 3 is reasonable, reason being, I don't think Allen and Hurts will be that much further ahead of the group this year. Based on last years' Top 5, I would take Love over Allen and Prescott this year, but not over Hurts or Jackson.

He absolutely would if his job was on the line. There will be an inquiry. If someone comes at him and says, "How did you not see this guy? It's what you're trained to do. That's entirely you're whole job." He absolutely will throw his boss under the bus. 100%.

Nope, the Democrat made it political, Trump gave a non-political/non-committal answer. See, this is your Trump hate pretending Trump did something that he didn't do.

I'm going out on a limb here (that's sarcasm... I'm obviously not, just wanted to preempt that so we don't have any confusion like in the Tax thread), the reason he said that was because the person (a Democrat, Geraldo Rivera), asked him if it would be ready by that date. Trump didn't pick the date, the Democrat did. Oh, he was rather non-committal about it too.

I'd like to think we both know that I'm not really guessing. I think you know that and willing to bet you agree with on those specific points in that post.

I'm saying who the source of the problem is. If you fix the source, the results fix themselves. It's not hypocrisy, it's problem solving.

I think they're auditing people they think they can get the money from the easiest... meaning, quickest with the least effort. If I had to guess, I'd say that the average Joe making less than $200k per year has less accountants and financial experts than the top 12% do. Therefore, I think their fastest way to get the money is to target those people more. If they target 1M people making less than $200k per year, I think they'd find it very easy to average $667 from those people than they would if they targeted the 1M of the 1% to get just $333 (on average), to make up that $1B.

Oh, I get it. So when we need to find a solution, you don't believe that we should start at the beginning as to where the problem started... you want to address the results. Yeah, cause that works great.

I quoted it... it's the last line of the article in your OP.

Guess you didn't read the beginning of the chain. Not surprised. Funny, you agreed with me and called me a sheep in the process.

Which is my point. Democrats made it political.

At least or less than $200k? According to Statisti.com, approximately 88% of the country make LESS than $200k... that's where the Biden administration got two-thirds of that $1B from. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the top 12% owe a lot more than that bottom 88%.

Remember when this plan went into effect, the Biden administration said they were targeting the 1% (notice how the article headline is about the "high-wealth taxpayer"), and Conservatives said that the Biden administration weren't going to target the 1% like they pretend, that they were going to target the middle and lower class? After reading this article, who lied and who told the truth? If Jack & Jill Smith owe $500, I don't care anywhere as much as I do Bill Gates owing $1M (for example). That $500 is likely a hellofa lot more to Jack & Jill Smith than the $1M from someone like Bill Gates. Hmmm... like Obama's IRS, I wonder how many of those Jack & Jill Smith's $500 debtors are Republicans?

I can't say I recognize her name or roles, but when I looked her up and saw her picture... she's similar looking to Emma Chambers (died 6 years ago... age 53).

He's definitely not the smartest.

You think the 1% made up ONLY $333M of unpaid taxes? You really think that? You really think the lower and middle class everyday citizen make up two-thirds of all the money owed?

"Yeah but" is your excuse? LOL. Stop while you're behind. Enjoy your Kool-Aid, commie.