Rob's House

I agree with Beane. Draft BPA. The only reason to draft for need is if you don't think you'll be around long enough to see your team develop. Better to have an overabundance of talent in one area than mediocrity across the board.

You do realize it's the Democrats in the Senate that are holding out, right? The House passed a bill that the Senate Dems refuse to vote on. President Trump hasn't vetoed anything. He has taken no official action to cause the shutdown.

Not everyone follows politics. A lot of people only get headlines or what they hear in passing. Now they know the argument. They know the President wants a wall & why he wants it, and they know the Democrats strongly oppose it for no apparent reason. Partisans aren't budging, but it's likely that some people who didn't have strong feelings about the issue are now more sympathetic to the President's side. Chuck & Nancy didn't persuade anyone - at least not in any way favorable to them. And the relative handful of people whose checks stop coming might not be terribly sympathetic to Chuck & Nancy's decision to sacrifice their financial well being to spite President Trump. Most of those people are Dems anyway. On a more basic level, the optics were just bad. Those two looked looney as tunes, and nothing they said betrayed that perception. It was a bad night for them.

This wasn't for the political crowd, but for the average Joe. That guy just heard the President make a case for a border wall that maybe wasn't terribly inspiring, but was certainly reasonable. Then that was immediately contrasted against two nutty looking Dems offering a painfully empty rebuttal that amounted to little more than "we want border security, but we oppose any practical means of achieving it. Because ???. So shut it down." Matt Damon was more insightful & convincing in Team America.

Judging from the reactions across the spectrum, it seems this was a pretty good move for President Trump and a colossal failure for the Dems. Chuck & Nancy (& msm for that matter) took what would have been a modest win for the President & turned it into a big victory for him with their unforced errors.

I used to watch this guy when he was MSNBC's answer to Bill O'Reilly on "Scarborough Country," back when they were still trying to pass themselves off as balanced. He was the conservative, principled, slightly moralistic former Republican congressman who liked to cast himself in the mold of Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith goes to Washington. He was a little dull, but he was alright. I didn't see this guy for 10+ years. Then I happen upon him by way of Twitter and now he's a petty, left-wing, *****-slinging, yet still ironically sanctimonios, weirdo. It's so bizarre. I can't recall seeing such an extreme personality transformation since Al Gore's campaign.

WTF happened to this assho|e?

I'd rather do that with a FA, but you make a fair point. I suppose we could be a lot closer than we think, and if that's the case we may be better off getting the big time receiver now and worrying about his replacement later. It would be interesting to see how teams try to contain the speed of Foster & Brown while accounting for Allen's running ability. The jaded Bills fan in me worries that he'd be here through the mediocrity and then decline when we need him to peak, but maybe he could be part of creating a culture of winning in Buffalo. Badol's point about the cap is well taken too. I still don't know that I'd give up a first for him, but I could live with it.

Who is that guy & why does he have so many followers?

That's completely different for a few reasons, the first being that Medicare for all would be exponentially more expensive and continue on into perpetuity whereas the overwhelming majority of the cost of the wall would be initial construction. It's the difference between leasing a house and buying a mailbox.

At what point do we debate the merits of the President's proposal rather than sharing our biased opinions of what his ultimate motivations might well have been? The motivation of the Dems is interesting because they can't seem to articulate a reason for their steadfast opposition, but what's more interesting (and relevant) is that they can't articulate a reason for their opposition. It seems to me that a prima fascia case has been made that border security would be enhanced by the wall and that the relative cost is minimal. What's the counterpoint?

I don't believe this is true at all. People on the right genuinely want a wall. It was one of President Trump's biggest campaign issues. For the right this is a legitimate issue. For the Dems this is purely political, which is evident by their utter inability to formulate any coherent reasoning behind their decision to dig in and fight as though their lives depended on it. The average Democrat doesn't really oppose this, ot at least didn't until they were told they do. This is not a "both sides" situation. One side is fighting for something they want, the other is fighting for the sake of keeping them from getting it.

I often wonder if the leftists pushing this open borders agenda and clamoring for people with children to be let into the country understand that they are encouraging human trafficking and child exploitation. I sincerely hope they don't know any better, because political bias is human, but sacrificing children for the sake of political posturing is evil.

That was absolutely brilliant. He completely trivialized KJU and changed the perception of him from dangerous dictator to ridiculous stooge with one twist of phrase without having to make empty threats or direct insults. If you weren't blinded by extreme partisan bias you could appreciate the beauty of it.

Do libs think it is more productive to conduct diplomacy by publicly talking ***** about leaders of foreign countries? I'm open to hearing the arguments in favor of this approach, but intuitively it seems retarded. It's a good way to put your adversary in a position where he has to oppose you to save face. It seems much more effective to let your words work towards diplomacy and let your actions dictate the parameters. I recall a guy who offered up a lot of tough talk about red lines and such, then cowered like a B word when his bluff was called. The opposite approach seems preferable to me.

For some reason the term "shimmy shimmy ya, shimmy yam, shimmy yay" comes to mind. Are you insinuating that he doesn't bathe regularly?

He'll be 31 when the season starts. He may play for another 4-5 years, but the odds are against him being a premier receiver for more than another year or 2. Someone who thinks they're a WR away from the SB probably would offer more, & I would not outbid them. I'd rather take a chance on a top prospect (like his brother AJ) who may be part of a dynasty than an old man who won't be around in a few years.

Arguing with the oversensitive one will do it.

The Tibs crowd would definitely appreciate it. Not so sure the Plenz types would be as understanding. Not that I think either would ever turn on the Dems.

True, but they could never admit they shutdown the government just to spite President Trump. They're playing a losing hand.

This is why this is a smart fight for President Trump. The only real reason to dig in this hard against the wall is if you desperately want open borders, and that's a wildly unpopular (not to mention insane) position.

I'd give up a 3rd for him, but that's about it. I can't think of too many undersized WRs who continued to dominate in their mid 30s.

That you responded like this, rather than abusing your mod privileges, earns you some respect in my book.

It's "people who speak in metaphors...", but mine worked in context.

That people with no sense of humor should shampoo my crotch.