jerryskids

What I got from this thread is that @Mike Honchobelieves that if you raise taxes on corporations, those costs pass through to the consumer. Duly noted, for future tax discussions.

True, it would be a great development. I read stuff like this though: and think hmm, with the climate "crisis" as motivation, we ker-chunk along at a snail's pace, adding a few seconds each year to the sustained plasma. But 80 years ago, before computers, when we thought the Germans or Japanese might do it first and destroy us, we went from nothing to two functioning nuclear bomb technologies in less than two years. It's all about the motivation... or lack thereof.

To each their own. I would have told Tim to fock off and we'll decide in November. To me, the spirit of the bet was that. I don't view that a win. It's not about the money, it's about being right. Like the bet in Trading Places for $1.

That's a pretty good description..

Yes, there is no context. I see this: and then, @Engorgeous George saying that since Biden isn't officially the candidate as of today, he wins and you lose, and you agree. Without context, that seems like a dumb position upon which to end the bet. I would need to see these other discussions to form an opinion.

I have a little time now; where do I go to read what happened? Is it all in this thread, or elsewhere. If here, what pages/exchanges?

What does this mean? Like, somebody who finds flabby moobs attractive on a guy would be a gynosexual?

I don't know when Jewish holidays are. It was historically shown during Passover, not sure when it became an Easter thing. More cultural appropriation, arrgghhhh#@~!

It's a Passover movie

We post pics and videos of women here all the time. Also, any pre-pubescent kid sees a woman dressed as a bunny dancing around. Grow up or leave

I've started drinking outside of Chase Field before the Dbacks game, so I'm not comfortable moderating anything, especially a $2K bet. If this is still in question tomorrow, after Easter activities, I'll try to chime in.

The 2014 came from the pods. I have no other supporting info.

Freakonomics has a wonderful podcast series out right now about our broken immigration system. Politically, the host leans left, but it seems to be presenting valid points from both pro and anti immigration: https://freakonomics.com/podcast-tag/the-true-story-of-americas-supremely-messed-up-immigration-system/ I'm not quite done with it but I've learned a lot. It'll take a few hours to listen to it all, but worth it IMO if you want to learn the history as well as pros and cons. The history in a nutshell is: we haven't always been receptive to anyone but western Europeans and German protestants. My one concern that they haven't addressed yet is the problem of attributing old data to the current situation. The "old" data indicates that immigrants cost us money, but their kids and their kids more than make up for it in tax revenues, so it is a net positive. But they also discuss that in 2014, around the advent of social media, word got out to people that if they (and their families) just come and manage to get into the country, there is a good chance that they will stay for life, so the numbers have exploded. I'm not convinced that the old data (something along the points that @5-Pointsmade early in this thread) still apply. This is too nuanced for @The Real timschochet, who just sees the data and concludes that all immigration is good.

The only child he's sharing it with is you. Grow the fock up.

Smartest thing you've said in this thread.

This thread isn't discussion, it's your narcissism.

I don't love him as a pope. But I love him as a person who dedicated his life to the ministry of Christianity. If it is his time, I hope he passes peacefully.

Well then leave.

This thread is not in the spirit of a chat board. Either you want to participate, or you don't. Eventually I'll stop posting here.

Yeah, we discussed his narcissism, he admitted it. I dislike the idea of this thread for reasons you listed, and I've mentioned, but I confess to a guilty pleasure of coming in occasionally to see how unserious he is in his "serious" thread.

If you have a better black comp, feel free to introduce him. Yes, I'm talking about Isabella. McConkey also played for the best team in the SEC, maybe CFB, with Bowers and a bunch of NFL prospects on the line. I'll remind you that my comment was regarding him being the best WR in the draft. If you agree with that, please defend it. It doesn't seem like you will though, since you called him a "good player for a while."

Maybe, probably not. Everyone is looking for the next Cooper Kupp or Edelman. Cards wasted a pick on one, many others have as well. It's one thing to be a weapon on a great team with superior talent across the board against overmatched opponents. It's another to do it in the big man's league, where the teams are all comparable and the defense is full of freakishly talented men looking to destroy you. I don't know enough him to say if he has the cerebral capabilities to do it, but he won't go in the first round.

Here is the problem with your plan. The Bears really don't have that much leverage IMO. Everyone knows they are picking one of these 3 QBs, so the farthest down they could go is 3. Problem with that is, they will have identified their guy, and no GM would take the chance that that guy will be there at #3. In fact I just laid out a scenario where Washington takes Maye, and then the Bears are stuck with Daniels. I say "stuck" because he wasn't their guy in this scenario. So best they can do is trade down to #2, with some sort of guarantee (or a deal similar to Eli and Rivers back in the day, where Eli is drafted then traded after Rivers is drafted). Washington knows in this scenario that Williams isn't their guy, so they probably won't give up a king's ransom to move up one spot. Some capital of course, but not a ton. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

I think that's because he just kicked your ass on this topic. You won't see it tho.

After Washington's failed RG3 experiment, I doubt they choose the skinny Daniels.