Magox

When people make comparisons, you have to consider relativity, that is simply a basic point in how arguments are constructed. So relatively speaking, how will you make a comparison? You use the other major sports, specially considering that the other sports are just as accessible to being viewed through streaming coverage or cellphones what have you. So the idea that "well it's at a bottom it can only go up". There are two problems with that statement. A) You don't know that. B) Even if it were at a bottom, if the argument you are making holds true, it still would create further room for a drop because there are more outlets for viewing the sport such as what you had originally mentioned.

I understand, and I know that MLB has seen a gradual decline over the past 20 years or so but that isn't what we are seeing with the NFL. The NFL's drop is the only major sport out of the big three where we have seen a sudden drop over the past year. The argument you made was that more people are watching sports over the phone etc, I agree with that, but that argument would apply to the other major sports as well and that hasn't happened. So just going by basic logic, this implies that there is another force at play that is contributing to the sudden precipitous drop in the NFL's viewership. We can debate what that outside force is, but the idea that was brought forth by you doesn't logically apply, imo.

You are reaching. I gave you a much better comparison than the ESPN argument you made. If you want to believe that only Football out of the big three sports is effected by this new phenomena that involves the internet and cell phones, that's fine, you are entitled to that.

I do what I can.

You have an argument for the NBA, not so much for MLB. But here you go for the NBA, shows growth from the previous year.

Because that isn't an apples to apples comparison. If we go by the logic that was given by Mcbride, then this same theory should hold true for the NBA and MLB, correct? But they don't. Baseball NBA

I'd rather have either of these two guys as president over our current choices.

O'leary has looked serviceable over the past few weeks, much more so than we've ever seen out of Dray

Your argument would have more resonance if we saw a gradual decline, this sudden drop does not fit this piece of the puzzle.

Yeah, uh huh. Beyond useless.

I think there is a good explanation to why this is happening. Isn't the player salary cap somehow tied to TV revenues? If that's the case and salaries don't increase as much as they would have increased, I think there will be a certain back up football player that is going to receive lots of criticism behind closed doors from many players in the league.

I don't believe it was a purposeful headbutt as much as it was him anticipating that Gilmore go low and he wanted to hurdle and then realized he wasn't gonna go low and he put his head down. A quasi hurdle/put head down sort of deal

Yep, it does appear we have the luxury to ease him in. I imagine as mentioned they'll throw him on some passing situations and based on his play either look to increase or decrease his playing time.

It's a disaster. There are a bunch of unholy alliances out there, you don't know who to trust and it is nearly impossible to fully vet your allies from this region. Often times as we've seen in the past, you support one group who you believe is your ally and then they turn around to stab you in the back because they hate you just as much as the ones they were previously fighting. Arms get into the wrong hands much more so than what should happen. The strategic outlook in my view looks too much into short-term gains rather than taking a broad overview of the situation. The problem is that the American public is impatient and often times administrations only last 4-8 years which means that a change of direction comes about with the new administration. Meaning that there is no sustained follow through with a proper solution. Perfect example of that was with Bush, yes the involvement into Iraq was a mistake, and it destabilized the region despite the human tragedies that were occurring under Sadam. However, after some brutal years in Iraq, things became much more stabilized in the region. Then we have a president who runs heavily on being Anti War, he has a strategy that is to essentially pull out at any cost, and what happens? Vacuums become filled and the Middle East becomes destabilized again. No follow through. These Religious wars don't last decades but rather centuries. And with the way our political process works, I'm afraid we will continue to see a volatile middle east for many many life times.

That's not how it works

I didn't recognize at first who was running that play, the only thought that came to mind was "Man, that dude looks slow"

A lot of people would take many NE players over Bills players, but the two DB's aren't two of them.

Yep, sounds about right

I will get to that, I promise... But let's first tackle one thing at a time. I promise you we will get to the rest. Let's start all over. Pretend that I'm someone that you haven't met and I say to you:

So no quote from the links that you provided as definitive proof that the US was in "fact" supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda as proxies as you explicitly claimed? I'm shocked!

You spend countless time concocting these tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. Spend five minutes in quoting the parts that back up this claim: It's an easy task, from the links that you provided, quote the part that backs up this claim. Any part. Dude, you are the one that looks bad here, not GG. GG is well-respected on this board and everyone knows he's on the up and up.

In other words, you are unable to do it. I knew I shouldn't have engaged in this sort of conversation with you, like I said two different planes. One plane is in the real world, the other is in tin foil hat territory.

There is a lot to deconstruct here. So let's just address one at a time. The first link you provided, http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html Doesn't in any shape or form back up your assertion. The closest parallel you can make is that there are US funded groups that are fighting each other. No where does it even come close to showing that the US is purposely or for that matter inadvertently backing ISIS as a proxy against Russia or Assad. All that link showed was that there are separate groups that have a common enemy vs Assad but at the same time have their own self-interests and will battle against anyone they believe will get in the way of their own objectives. So the first link, is a big whiff. The second link https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo Essentially the same thing. All this article says is that the British government helped fund the Free Syrian Army and that they tried to prosecute this guy for some form of terrorism and that the prosecution decided to not go with their case because this guy was part of the Free Syrian Army. If you think this equates proof that the US or British government are actively engaging in a proxy war along with ISIS then I don't know what to tell you. So far, you are 0 for 2. For your third link http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf All this shows is that there are forces at odds with one another that have common enemies. That's all, nothing else. No wild-eyed conspiracy of the US using ISIS or Al qaeda as a proxy to fight Assad or Russia. The only mention of Proxy in this link, is proxy via Russia, Iran and China, not the US supporting Al Qaeda or ISIS. The closes thing that you have is that the US is supporting the "opposition forces". Duh!!! So far, 0 for 3 The fourth link https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092#.qty64xcha Basically, the whole case from whoever this guy is, is that he uses the previous link and editorialized into his opinion. So this article is largely based on the previous link. So there is nothing there other than some dude rehashing link number three and providing his opinions of what he read. Nothing there. Link 5 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/08/west-training-syrian-rebels-jordan Holy crap! There is absolutely nothing, zilch, nada that supports what you said. Nothing, I mean absolutely nothing! All it says is that the US and Britain are now helping train some Syrian officers who defected from Syria to Jordan. That is all it says. So that is a big whiff. Let's try it this way, you see when anyone ever asks for you to provide proof, all you do is the following: Provide a very long explanation of the theory that you have of what you believe is happening and when pressed for specifics, you provide links. Fine, so I read the links, and there is nothing that supports Supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda to be our proxies implies an intentional effort to arm these terrorist to help us fight the Russians and Assad. No one denies that the vetting process of how arms get into the hands of our short-term allies or even the decision to help certain groups haven't been fraught with peril. But that does not factually support your claim that there is an intentional undertaking to arm ISIS and Al Qaeda to advance our goals. Then when we dispute your links, and ask you to specifically underline the part that definitively makes your case that the US is unequivocally without any doubt purposely supporting Al Qaeda or ISIS, you usually say something like "well I'm not going to do your homework, it's there, read it" I did. When someone makes the claim of something the onus is on them to prove their point. Just providing a link doesn't cut it. So again, underline the parts that you believe make this case: