TPS

Regardless of who it is, the key to this game is how well the corner opposite of White plays tomorrow. Rogers will be looking that way most of the day, after he's looked off the safety of course....

The third piece about Zo currently rated top 5 edge rusher, he's such a great story and important part of McD's culture change. For me, he's close to being in the Fred/Kyle Category of respect for Bills players that stand out over the long drought period. For Zo tho, he marks the transition to glory days to come...

It's got to be tough when you're on the sidelines in a game like they just had...

Maybe we'll get back that 2020 7th rounder that Beane foolishly through away on Coleman?

One game doesn’t indicate a trend. After this week’s win, they will make a Lambeau Leap up the charts!

Starting to see some "bold" predictions this week that we'll beat the Packers, but NO ONE will hold a candle to your prediction this year @Like A Mofo!!!

Oh I fully realize they've been counted out before, and maybe they will bounce back again, but their team speed is mediocre.

They looked old and slow as a team last night. I think the Fins can go in and take this game.

Perusing the post-game thread, GBiD posted the biggest busts in living memory....

Just checked, they're averaging 4 sacks against per game, so we very well could see another strong game by the front four, aka Jerry's kids.

Someone is going for the all-time troll attempt--nice!

Oredigger, coming from this particular poster, sometimes this statement is literal, and other times it's used as a term of endearment; this is the latter.

The D did this with essentially pulling a CB off the street too!

If this turns into a season where they get a top 2 pick AND Allen is progressing, then I won't be disappointed. They could use one of Bosa/Oliver to take the D to the next level. Yes, they need more weapons on O, but they need a REAL stud who can get after the passer.

Yeah, I liked their strategy from last year: if they can run at will, then they won't pass. It reduces the points against....

If Trump is a Putin stooge, then why did he change his policy on Syria from his campaign statements that we should pull out, to actively seeking regime change? Syria is being supported by Russia, so wouldn't Putin push him to pull out if he's a stooge? Sorry, I sometimes forget to come back to things. Without looking, I can say, as I've said all along, that the Russia collusion story is utter BS, hatched by Podesta et al after the loss. Mueller's investigation, closing in on two years now, has yet to find any material influence on the election. None of the indictments support the narrative. It's not difficult to find illegal activity among the misfits that joined this administration. The one exception (not a misfit) is Flynn, and they got him on perjury--he said something different than what they had on tape. The Dems have wasted tons of political capital on the Russian narrative, and it's done more harm than good (IMO).

If Trump is working "at Putin's behest," how can you explain what's happening in Syria?

Agree. If Allen is going to take it from here, then go with the youth, Ray Ray and Foster.

a time warp!

What, no Flutie-Johnson in that list if memories!?

You make a good point about outsourcing IT, however the issue concerns the tax cut for the one-time repatriation of profits which was touted as a boon for investment in American companies and workers by the current resident of the White House. You provide reasons why it was never going to materially impact current PP&E--they've been doing it for a long time (does that mean it was under Obama...? ?). It has, however, materially impacted stock re-purchases to-date. On a side note, I recently realized that my activity on PPP is directly related to the level of insanity on TSW....

Why are they doing it? I believe I posted an article in this thread awhile back suggesting it's because management is compensated via stock and options, so they have an incentive to artificially spur prices through buybacks; and there are no better alternative investment outlets. What about the other $268 bil? It's right where it was before, invested in liquid assets. As noted, the "repatriation" is simply an accounting transfer from the books of the foreign subsidiary to the books of the US parent. As for your points related to their suggestions, equalizing rates does eliminate the incentive to keep money out of the US. Inversions are done for the tax savings, which is the point they focus on. I don't know the answer about the 10Ks and reporting by country. Maybe they mean the parent needs to do that on its consolidated statements? The problem is how to eliminate the incentives of US MNEs to keep funds listed with foreign subsidiaries which means those funds can't be used in the US (though the example of Apple using their foreign funds as collateral for domestic borrowing shows an indirect use). I think some of their suggestions do help. For me, the point in posting the article was in support of the arguments by the critics that the one-time tax reduction would be used to support buybacks, not productive investment. So far, that's mostly been the case. However, I can certainly see a point relatively soon where some of those funds could support productive investments, as the accelerated growth from the Trump tax cuts and spending increases is pushing firms closer to capacity, which is what drives business investment.

Sad. There's no love without de Beer....

This place has been around so long that GG and I have run a marathon worth of laps around some of these issues! One quick response to your post, I think one of the important points they make is that the majority of the funds are already "invested" in US assets, so it's not like there has been some major shift from outside the US into corporate coffers. Their point is that it has had a measurable impact on the value of share buybacks, but no other noticeable impact, specifically on real investments.

No, not what I'm saying at all.