Magox

I don't know, I'm not an NFL scout. But if I had to take a guess, it's because the judgement they had was that he was a not-so-high-ceiling QB due to arm strength. And if he turns out the way I and I'm sure many of you hope that he turns out, we'll be lucky that they misjudged him.

I don't believe I have ever said or implied any such thing.

Seriously, you are the worst poster from the left on this site.

I think the frustration Cugalabanza is how the media covers these stories. If it was a right wing activist, this would be a central focus of the story. We'll see how the mainstream media cover this story.

Yates

Go away

I don't believe he is competing for a starting job, not yet. I'm not going to go out on a limb for him, but I do think it is a somewhat generic response to someone who has average arm strength. People tend to cast aside these sort of players as "low ceiling" or "game manager" types. There is nothing in the style of his QB play aside from his arm strength to suggest this. He was never a safe check down sort of QB, he played with bravado and was a gunslinger in college. Will that translate into him being a starting NFL Qb in this league? Who knows, but I think your characterization of him is off and as I mentioned earlier a bit generic.

That every single person that has been asked that question that is involved with the investigation has said so. Sorry Tiberius, I go with the facts, not conspiracies.

Listen, Trump is an oaf. I have little doubt that he invited Comey to try to communicate to him that he hoped he could drop the investigation. To my understanding, the president has the authority to tell anyone under the purview of the executive branch to drop any investigation he sees fit. That's not to say that it isn't a perilous political path to take and even if you were to believe Comey's testimony he didn't outright tell him to drop it nearly as much as the previous administration's, Obama's appointed Lynch unequivocally instructed Comey to tip the scales in the previous election by referring to the Clinton investigation as a "matter". Anyone who has been paying attention to this board knows that I am no fan of Trump. I happen to believe that he is his own worst enemy. Having said that, this started off as a matter of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, and every day that passes it looks as if that no longer is the case. The goal posts are moving because the media has a blood lust appetite to go after Trump, and Trump is such a narcissistic goob that he keeps providing them fodder to chase after. In the meantime his agenda has largely been stalled, he doesn't have the political capital to push vulnerable Democrats to swing his direction in key votes or for that matter vulnerable Republicans. And why is that? Because he is the most hated man that this planet has seen in a very long time, and he has no one to blame for that but himself.

I would say that if I had to take a guess, the populace of Iran are much more sympathetic and kosher with Western culture ie. The US than the Saudi's. The difference is that leadership of each country is not inline and representative of their constituents.

I think you give him too much credit. I used to believe that maybe I had been wrong about him and that he was some sort of evil genius. But that hair-brained theory has long run it's course. He's just a thin-skinned narcissist who simply cannot allow himself to let anything go uncontested.

It's a good discussion, GoBills808 is able to put together well-thought-out and cogent arguments. I believe he means as well as anyone else on this board, I just happen to believe that his vision of society is a Utopian fantasy. I believe he overestimates human behavior and what most people are willing to do outside of what is best for their own particular situation. I just don't see a society that is run by humans that would thrive without an incentive driven economic orthodoxy. History has told us that the more you "give" and the less economic incentive provided to man the less he is willing to do. I believe we can safely say that has been the case much more often than not. The conflict for me is that although I deeply disagree with GoBills808 economic philosophy as well-meaning as it may be, I think that from my perspective, sadly it is inevitable that some of his ideal policy prescriptions may share similar space in a Venn Diagram of what I believe we may ultimately need.

Well it is so passe' among British nationalists that are now a main staple of Fox news to bash on May because she isn't the Trumpian/Farage sort of candidate that they craze, that who knows? Maybe she won't have the nationalist base to push her through the finish line. Then again, there is the other guy Corbyn who I hear is wholly unacceptable to many British voters.

You're right! They should have just hired you, you know with your vast wealth of knowledge and experience that you have over these people who have successfully led teams to Super Bowls. I mean, you have Google on your side, what else do you need?

Philosophically I'm opposed to your line of thinking, in today's world this sort of orthodoxy leads to stagnation and lower economic output. Also, and I say this not in a pejorative manner but I think this sort of does make you more so of a communist than a socialist.

I think you've made very good arguments. I just don't see how one could measurably evaluate "dignity" into a form of compensation. The beauty of capitalism from my perspective is that more often than not it rewards productivity. For that reason, in my view it still is the best form of economic and political system. Having said that, moving forward I do believe that some sort of hybrid of capitalism and some other form of economic and political system will eventually be the path forward. Absolutely. For the most part. I've been saying the same thing for years as well as you probably have seen me say. Reforming the welfare system with more strings tied to employment.

The irony is that it is exactly that confidence and human capability that will produce advanced technologies that will most likely make most human labor functions obsolete. I'm sort of beginning to fall under this line of thinking. My instincts and social desires are that we incentivize people to work, and I believe that should always be the case. I hear Azalin's argument and in a perfect world that is the way I would want things to be. He says that there will be other jobs available with higher skill levels. I agree, however I believe that the net loss of jobs from the more menial sorts of labor along with some loss of higher skilled positions due to AI will far outweigh the net gains from the higher skill jobs. I just don't believe it is feasible to expect that for every job lost due to advanced technologies that there is a net job to be gained via higher skilled trade. I don't buy that and seems illogical to me. I could be wrong, but I just don't see it.

I see the risks. And I don't really have any good answers in how you would counter those risks. Hell, I don't really even have a developed way in how it would actually look like. The only thing that I do recognize is that some sort of variant of a UBI could potentially be a solution to what I believe is an inevitability, which is a looming jobs crisis.

This is the year that Sammy will be judged by the coach and GM to put in a good healthy season. If not, it will most likely be his last season in a Bills uniform.

I happen to agree with much of what you are saying here. I think for me, from the limited amount of time that I've spent researching and actually trying to see how a system like this would actually work, on the face of it there are a few areas where I do believe it could help. It really depends on how many jobs will be decimated to Robotics, automation and AI. If we are talking about over a 1/3 of the workforce, then we will have to find a solution for all this potentially devastating possibility.

To be honest with you, I haven't given it great thought in how it would work in practical terms. I will say this though, from my perspective a one-size-fits-all sort of implementation wouldn't be efficient for the reason that you brought up. I've always like the idea of completely revamping the welfare system, I think we have too many serial abusers in the system who are perfectly content living mediocre lives and having to work as little as possible. So from that perspective I could see how a UBI could be a useful tool to replace the welfare state as we know it. Then, there is what I see as a looming jobs crisis. Blue collar workers will largely be replaced in just about every field with automation and robotics even many white collar jobs will be replaced with AI. Meanwhile, I see profits getting larger for successful corporations. I think eventually there will have to be some sort of UBI or some variation of that idea.

I don't hate him, but he is a classic meathead.

Not if it was a mechanism that replaced welfare as we know it.

I've yet to find a single person who has been able to defend the Paris Climate agreement with a scintilla of substance. All I hear are hysterics and dire forecasts.

We were discussing this the other day and it so happens that differing variations of UBI seems to be a philosophical idea that ranges across many different political spectrums. I think as time passes by you will begin to see this idea pushed forward by lawmakers. .