jerryskids

Agreeing with what? "Generally" means a majority of the time. Let's say, however, that only 10% of people make that association. Is it still OK to use it?

Again, wasting my time looking for a Tim gotcha. A "Timcha"? I said I would presume it is authentic unless I see evidence to the contrary. That's generally my position on things, since I try to be open minded. It must be easy, just swallowing the blue pill on everything categorically.

Thanks, I think. Also, I never root for violence. But I was indeed pleasantly surprised by its absence. I think credit goes to the organizers who seemed to schedule them in the middle of the day and ensure they ended well before dark. And they did it for free, because it was all organic!

Bump. Cmon, each of these should have at least 10 votes, since 10 of us did the draft! @BiffTannen, when are you stopping the voting? We might need to let these run for a day or two.

Bump. Cmon, each of these should have at least 10 votes, since 10 of us did the draft!

Who is "just stupid," Moderate Tim. Are you saying 86 can't refer to killing, particularly in police or military circles?

I explained why I was a little suspicious, but you chose to delete it in asking me to explain. Please don't do that, it's yet another waste of time from you.

86 certainly can mean to kill, although remove or cancel are more common usages. I'm not speaking of Comey's intentions, although its somewhat difficult to believe that he never heard of it, being the head of our national police force. Like I said, I don't know about the video. I'd accept it as authentic unless better evidence to the contrary emerges. I found it interesting though because Squissy earlier posted a picture from the Boston one which used a severe fish eye lens, the kind that realtors use to make your 100 sq ft living room look the size of a basketball court.

That guy in the video immediately before your post wasn't calling for the assassination of Trump? Also I have no memory of the image you mentioned. But I don't recall any momentum to assassinate Biden.

If you lose one game that way, you can call it a fluke or unlucky. When you lose every game in a similar way, it is what they are. As Bill Parcells famously said (I paraphrase), "you are what your record says you are." In addition to the handling of Parsons, a few other examples. 1. Seven seconds left in the first half and they intentionally kick into the end zone, giving the Pack the ball on the 35. Pack completes one pass for 22 yards and makes a FG to end the half. That was the difference in the game, as the Cards would otherwise have been able to kick a FG at the end to win. All they had to do was put the kick in play, tackled the guy, and the half was over. 2. Going for it on 4th and 1 near midfield. I don't so much mind going for it per se. But Gannon was outcoached. They lined up for a QB sneak/tush push. GB then called time out and put in their goal line package. The Cardinals made no changes, stuck with the play, and went backwards. A good coach would have had a secondary play at that point. Pitch wide to Bam Knight, or roll Brissett out with a TE pass option. Anyway, Cards on bye next week than Kyler will be back. The offense has been flat out better with Brissett at QB. Brissett is nothing special, just a competent journeyman QB who is tall enough to absorb hits and throw over the line. IMO it shows that the rest of the offense is good without the novelty of Kyler-ball. Other than Harrison, who reverted to his generally crappy self. I have no idea how the son of a HOF receiver learned to catch balls against his chest and face mask, but here we are.

I have no idea if the videos are authentic, but saying that multiple media outlets used the same aerial footage isn't terribly compelling evidence that the footage is authentic. Many (most) media outlets slurp up whatever the Hamas Information Minister says and repeats it as gospel. (Drink!) Thinks normalizing a call for assassinating the president is funny.

I don't think they were all paid, but regarding the bolded... bless your heart.

Places don't organize rides, people do. Paid people. But you bring up a good point. Since @The Real timschochetasserts that one of the tangible goals of these protests was to raise funds, did the DNC and/or some other organization pay for all of the public resources needed to put on these fundraisers errr... protests?

I said assertions. The pic in my link makes it seem that the eager, organic protestors shut down exactly at quitting time. @Frozenbeernuts also reported seeing a bunch of buses and supply trucks off of a freeway near Chicago.

It's never Hamas's fault. It's Trump!

I honestly don't know. I've seen a lot of assertions of paid protestors. I will say that the sheer number of them was impressive, although I presume the majority were an old couple sitting on their front lawn with a "no kings" sign. Also the lack of violence was impressive.

Well sure, some people went before working their shift at the hospital, and a handful brought their kids. But certainly more people took their kids to kid event than to a protest. And there are countless other exclusions. People who are sick, traveling, don't have transportation, etc.

OK, let's try this again. 7M is 2% of 350M 1/2 of country is Trump supporter: 350M * 0.5 = 175M 30% of country works on Saturdays: 175M * 0.7 = 123M 13% are 10 and under, yeah a few went, but presume 0: 123M * .87 = 107M So far we're at 6.5% of the available and potentially interested population, not accounting for all of the adults taking care of young children, taking them to sports/events, etc. Still unrealistically high IMO.

My bad, 7M is 2%, not 5%. But more people than I thought work on Saturdays -- 30% according to ChatGPT. I need to think on that math before I goof up again.

Yeah, that seems like Hamas Information Minister numbers. 7M is 5% of the total population. Take out the 1/2 of the country that supports Trump, the very young and old, the people working or watching the very young or old, that would be what, 20-25% of the available population? Lots of fish eye lenses in squissy's X posts making crowds look bigger than they were.

I thought about REM -- they were huge in my college scene, but I graduated in 1989. Probably should have grabbed a song. Shiny Happy People would have gone with my list. Also thought about AIC, specifically Would. I'll say that I wasn't that into AIC during the 90s (got into them more later), plus I was generally looking for a more up-tempo list.

Oh yeah? Well your list is so bad that @BiffTannendidn't even include it.

@MikeMatt

I'm going with a band that @BiffTannenmentioned for the future 2000s draft... but this album actually came out in 1999. My wife and I played he crap out of this CD, and.0 since I can't have it in the 2000s, I'll take it now. 20.09 Creed - Higher

Great value at this point! Aenima was the Tool song I thought you'd take. Interesting that @iam90sbabylikes both of our playlists. This was on my short list for the last pick. I also was looing at Barenaked Ladies One Week, then realized that you picked that already in round 11.