Jump to content

nkreed

Community Member
  • Posts

    833
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by nkreed

  1. Just now, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

     

    The veto threatened to shutdown the government if any spending bill is passed without "DA WALL!!!!!!!!! NANCY AND CHUCK WON'T GIVE ME MY WHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAL"

     

    The spending Bills passed the House. They are the same bills that the Senate unanimously passed back in December, 100-0.

     

    It's just lil' Baby Donny having his temper tantrum that is holding things up.

    The Senate vote was just posturing for the senators to remove blame for the shutdown. That said McConnell has doubled down now on his stance, taking heat off of his party for future elections. Solely McConnell can be currently blamed for holding up the vote. 

     

    And for all the use of "temper tantrum" it's unbecoming of any adult to speak like this. Both sides need to grow the f up.

    • Like (+1) 1
  2. I don't think it was a good look for either side. I will agree with one point that was made by the Dems. Using government employees as leverage sucks.

    I'm not posting to say that both sides haven't used that leverage. I'm just saying that this sucks for the average American too.

     

    TSA agents are being FORCED to work without pay (for now).  How is that helping airport security? Border patrol agents unfunded, how does that help the argument?  This sh*t show from both sides sickens me.

  3. 3 hours ago, Pete said:

    When the ABC TV Network cancelled the series after 6 episodes, ABC entertainment president Tony Thomopoulos claimed it was because "the viewer had to watch it in order to appreciate it." TV Guide magazine would condemn that statement as "The most stupid reason a network ever gave for ending a series.

     

     

    My God was that awesome. My kind of humor there. So difficult to follow, yet so funny.

  4. 1 hour ago, row_33 said:

     

    does it happen constantly in a given NFL week?

     

    is this something Bills fans only cared to notice just because it happened last week?

     

    Exceptions to rules happen infrequently. That's why they are exceptions.  It is rather normal for a rulebook to have these kinds of things written in to prevent circumvention of a standard rule (in this case going through an opposing players back).

  5. 20 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

     

    I'm aware of the rule and the intention of that rule. It was NOT intended to allow a defender to hit a person in the back.  This is the ONLY instance in the rulebook that allows for a player to legally contact the back of a player.

     

    I am fine with the rule, but there needs to be an exception for contact through the players back.  This exception brings the rule back into conformity with the rest of the rulebook.

  6. Let me make my position a little clearer. The entire world should not know how the Supreme Court will rule prior to a case being heard. This is the unfortunate state we currently live in. We know how cases will be handled (for the most part) becaus to of the politics behind the sitting judges. Instead of making political statements, I just want them to take the facts of the case at hand and make a decision.

    • Like (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...