WhiteWonder

So no one mentioned you and yet you find my comment in this thread and your first reaction is “I wasn’t directly involved”

for standard... Olave and ..... I guess Diggs. You could make an argument for Watson because its non ppr. ... but if the Pats are in a shootout, then I like Diggs.

decision made for you

if you didn't start Higgins, I would go Boutte between the other two. Probably would have been my answer regardless.

Sit Swift... arguments can be made for Hall and Henderson but I expect the Pats/Bengals game to be fairly high scoring so even with Stevenson back I think Henderson will score plenty this week... The change at QB to Tyrod should help Hall a bit. Barkley is a must start and Tucker has a tough matchup but I think you have to start with Bucky out another week.

yes, I was going to use her as an example of how it's that character not the actress because that character had a look AND and attitude and even if she wasn't played by margot robbie, she probably gets played by a very attractive woman who can pull off the same attitude. but punchable face seems more literal and tied directly to the actor

question/comment from the peanut galllery punchable face. how literal is that? is it anyone whose face you just want to punch or are you heavily factoring in attitude and role of the character? curious because somewhere early in the thread I read you guys say you're drafting character, not actor/actress. punchable face kind of feels like drafting the actor. hot chick you'd wanna bang kind of leans that way but i think a character in a movie who is supposed to be a hot chick is going to be played by an attractive woman even in reboots or sequels with a different casting. Also, I think its part looks and part personality. I think Daniel Craig has a punchable face, but i'd never pick James Bond for that category So is punchable face more like a "this character is just the worst in a memorable way"?

I don't think so. I think the idea is that greater risk tolerance among investors will have them piling back in to things like bitcoin. I do have basic understanding of how bitcoin works and it certainly has plenty of utility... somewhere way back in this 188 pages i've been on record saying it won't replace fiat currency unless governments allow it (regulate it) which part of the big initial selling point on btc was its unregulated nature and how it was going to be the new world currency.... So I think a lot of reasons it was being touted several years ago are totally bunk. Anyone invested in btc, or any other cc's quickly became simply interested in how much their investments were worth in USD. I am all for a good trade. the last time I had eth I sold it in 2024. It's definitely back on my radar

oddly I think I liked him more with Flacco under center. Not sure with Burrow back. If there is ever a time to play him its this week with Chase out and the Pats being a better run D. If Gonzalez is on Higgins, Iosivas could have a nice day. Someone mentioned Fant but Gesicki sounds like he will be back.

but this is at least 97% of what liberals spend their day doing

did a lib get Helltoupee banned?

on my hopeful undrafted list for Villian good pick

Tyler durden was atop my villian list... i jotted down a bunch of heroes, villians, sports, funny, hot chicks after round 5, all bur durden are still available. Im hoping I have enough ammo at the end to submit a fun undrafted team

(peefoam) "Its real"

Add me. I’m your nemesis

This is great

I briefly considered joining this but at the end of the day I felt like it was really long for a topic that spans all of cinematic time and i've got nothing for pre 80's movies. I was more interested when I saw some chatter about NFL or MLB draft. But I do find this interesting so i've been following along. Hope you don't mind some early analysis I would have had a hard time not picking Indiana Jones in round 1 for hero but thats my bias. Of heroes I think Jerry made the right pick with Bond. I just think I lean toward a character who CAN be associated with just one actor even though it's not an actor draft. Makes me more invested in the pick. Vader was a great round 1 pick for villian, I would definitely have him over Montana Probably have Joker #2 villian As much as I love Jaws and Quint, that was the obvious pick that didn't belong in round 1 (jmho) if I were Jerry, I pass on Lecter and go with the HeroHero strat with Bond and Jones. Auto win of the category. Sports seemed early in round 1 but Biff made it work by snatching McClain for hero in round 2 (Dirty Harry would have also worked) The dude is a reach General observations There are a few characters I am interested to see not only where they go but what category they get used for I don't understand the punchable face category. Seems too subjective Overall, sports feels like one to wait. when this is over and everyone has their 28 character roster, depending on how depleted the pool is and how many of the characters I have in mind are gone, I may try to make a 28 character roster based on leftovers and see how it stacks up (which won't be well because the heaviest hitters will be gone, but just for fun)

you asked how it was different, not how it was specifically more affordable. Guess you are trying to move the goalposts because someone gave you an example and you didn't think anyone would. as far as i'm concerned, giving more options to people who currently need ACA is a good thing, and the plans they don't currently have access to, do in fact become more affordable.

if you want APTC, you are forced to pick a plan from a provider that participates in ACA. If APTC was effectively paid directly to you, you could then use it for any plan from any insurance provider you want. It expands your options. I've explained this repeatedly. How is giving more choices to those who qualify for APTC not a good thing? How is it not different than the current structure? you tried to act like paying the people is no different because they just have to turn around and pay the insurance company anyway... but you forgot that the people receiving government aid have limited choices and that government aid only goes to insurance providers that participate.

You asked someone to explain to you how paying the people is different than paying the insurance companies. I gave you an example. The end. We get it, you hate Trump. Have you provided any information that shows rich people who can already afford to buy whatever health insurance plan they want will be receiving direct payments to use on healthcare? If that is the case, then I would not be in favor of that.... but that was not your question.

no we do not agree. It would help people who can only afford ACA plans BECAUSE IT LETS THEM SPEND THE MONEY DIRECTLY ON A PLAN WITH WHATEVER INSURANCE PROVIDER THEY WANT, NOT JUST THE ONES WHO PARTICIPATE IN ACA your stupidity is honestly astonishing

Maybe an example will help 2025: Person A buys plan from ACA (the only way they are getting subsidies). Cost = 2,000/mo. Subsidies drop it to $1,000/mo Person B buys plan from whatever insurer they want. Cost = $3,000/mo. No subsidies (because the insurer is not part of ACA or because they wouldn't qualify for any through ACA anyway) so cost is $3000/mo 2026: Trump plan, pay the subsidies to the person Person A who qualifies for subsidies through ACA buys a plan wherever they want. Cost = $3,000/mo. They get $1,000/mo directly for health insurance, final cost is $2000/mo Person B still doesn't qualify and buys a plan wherever they want. Cost is $3000/mo. They get $0/mo directly for health insurance, final cost is $3000/mo. Get it? The benefit is for the person who doesn't want one of the few plans they are allowed to pick under ACA and now have the ability to use their "credit" anywhere they want. ACA is not an insurance company. It has participating companies that offer watered down plans. I never said it makes ACA plans cheaper. I said it gives more options to people who feel forced to pick a plan under ACA because that's how they get their APTCs. So it would be allowing them to get a non ACA member plan for cheaper.

One of the main (possibly only) reasons to buy your healthcare through ACA is to qualify for APTC and cost sharing reductions. It's financial aid for healthcare. If you need APTC to reduce your monthly premiums, chances are you will remain with ACA and choose the best plan you can from the participating providers. How is this helping people who are more well off? Why would more well off people be receiving money to spend on their coverage? If you can show me where this is the plan, I would be against it. Bottom line is you asked for someone (a maga, sorry they didn't respond) to explain how giving government aid directly to the people instead of to the insurance companies was any different. I gave you a reason. Imagine qualifying for financial aid for your health insurance through ACA and instead of the government sending it directly to the 3-4 companies who participate in obamacare, they send it directly to you to use with whatever company YOU want. How are you not seeing the difference there?

Not true If someone on ACA isn't thrilled with the slim options they are offered, they have no choice because they obviously need APTC. Instead of the government sending those APTCs directly to the few participating providers and the individual reconciling it at tax time, if the APTCs are given directly to the person they can use them to help purchase a plan from any provider they want. How is that not a benefit? or how is that not different? You are expanding the options for people who need to be on ACA. People who can afford premium programs bought privately are not people who would qualify for APTC through ACA. So how is this screwing the lower and middle class? If you have something that shows this idea is meant to give government funds (equally) to all Americans regardless of income level to use to buy healthcare, then sure... i'll agree. It seemed to me that this was more just a different concept to current ACA.