HappyDays
-
Posts
22,192 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by HappyDays
-
-
"If it turns out Seth Rich gave Podesta's emails to Wikileaks instead of the "Russians hacking them" it blows EVERYTHING you've been told out of the water. It destroys the narrative that the Russians "hacked" the election, it severely undercuts the entire collusion meme, it ends up making the MSM look foolish along with the DNC, the Clinton campaign on top of opening up serious charges against key people inside the establishment all through DC."
Okay so finding out that Seth Rich is the leaker would be a HUGE story. I mean like you said it would change everything aboht the way you see the world. AND JULIAN ASSANGE IS SITTING ON EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS TRUE.
So... Why is he hiding it? Seth Rich is already dead. Surely there is no better moment than now to release the evidence. There's a pattern in conspiracies like this - the information is always promised to come out later. Rod Wheeler has evidence coming TOMORROW... until he doesn't. Kim Dotcom is going to release an email conversation he had with Seth Rich TOMORROW. Why the wait? Real breaking news just breaks, it doesn't ask you to visit the blog/channel/whatever tomorrow.
I'm shocked, absolutely shocked, that there rubes who keep falling for this crap. Alex Jones is a millionaire! That blows my mind! He has to keep apologizing to companies in response to lawsuits he lost, but people keep on believing him and his ilk and giving them money.
So far you have one - ONE - piece of evidence, and it's Julian Assange nodding. I mean holy crap dude. I wish I could givs you some perspective on how nuts this all is but I can't because your brain isn't listening. It doesn't matter if every single piece of the story falls apart one by one, which has already begun to happen. You need this so badly to be true.
It's funny to me that when this story broke, the conspiracy narrative was that the Washington Post breaking Russia story was an attempt to cover it up. No one ever thought maybe it was the other way around? Maybe there's a reason Fox News suddenly drudged up noted liar Rod Wheeler on the same day that a breaking story about Trump and Russia broke? In search of some grand conspiracy you've missed the obvious one sitting right in front of your nose.
The bolded shows us how little you understand about how Wikileaks operates.
Stop making me ask you for a follow up, just post your full thought and let me digest it. This is another hallmark of conspiracy theorists, you all talk in this cryptic "riddle me this" way. Just come out with it. What is your point? How does Wikileaks operate in a way that excuses Assange not coming right out and saying that Seth was the leaker?
Keep this in mind too DR. It can be both true that there is a deep state intent on waging an information war AND that Seth Rich was simply tragically murdered in a botched robbery. You can accept that conspiracies happen without latching on to every single conspiracy theory. There actually is no evidence that Seth Rich was murdered by the DNC. Heck even IF the bombshell news came out that he was the leaker that STILL wouldn't prove that the DNC murdered him. This is the problem with conspiracy theories, they fill in all the blanks well in advance. So I feel confident in saying there is ZERO evidence that the DNC murdered Seth Rich. If you want to accept a nod as evidence of him being the leaker, be my guest. I can't stop you. But this isn't the part of a CSI episode where you piece everything together from a few loose threads on a corkboard. This is reality.
-
Do you not read what other people write when responding to you? Assange can not, I repeat NOT come out and say who gave him the information. If he did that it would turn WikiLeaks into WikiLeak. I think that you understand that and are just using that position to further your narrative.
Right, Assange can't just come out and say it. But he can make symbolic nods during an interview that his closest followers would recognize. Sure. Also Seth Rich was dead sooooooo why is Assange sitting on it? It doesn't matter anymore. The leaker is dead. Or if it does matter why he is answering the question in a way that leads his followers to think Seth Rich was the leaker? Like every conspiracy theory this one is a bundle of inconsistencies.
-
Said HappyDays, and without even a hint of irony detectable in his voice.
Saying "this murder is unsolved" is not a narrative. Saying "multiple people propagating the story have had to walk back their comments" is not a narrative. Saying "it is unlikely, due to lack of evidence, that the DNC murdered one of their staffers" is not a narrative. These are objective facts.
Speaking of narrative, what was the motive for this? How does the events that happened line up with the conspiracy theory? So the amazing all-powerful DNC, capable of covering up the murder of a leaker before anyone thought he was a leaker, their grand plan is to shoot him in the back in the middle of a neighborhood. And to not take any of his belongings. I guess they didn't realize that would look suspicious. (A hallmark of every conspiracy is that in the middle of all the grand scheming and planning, the people responsible for the operation are apparently the Three Stooges). There are no e-mail leaks from DNC mentioning Seth Rich by name. There is nothing connecting Seth Rich to these leaks at all other than Julian Assange, who himself didn't say anything until others had come up with the idea first. And the DNC thought they were going to win the election anyways. So they conspired to commit a shoddy murder, to hide embarrasssing emails from becoming public? There weren't any bombshells in those leaks. Nothing worth murdering for.
Nothing about the proposed narrative makes sense. Lack of serious motive coupled with lack of serious evidence. Only someone with an agenda would try to push thjs as anything but "unsolved murder." I for one trust the police when they say this was a botched robbery. That actually explains perfectly why nothing was stolen, because robbers don't expect to become murderers. The banal explanation makes a lot of sense. But it wouldn't get Sean Hannity all excited so it can't be true.
-
Guess we'll just wait for Wikileaks/Assange to release evidence that Seth Rich was the leaker. They should easily be able to produce this evidence. So far Rod Wheeler and Fox News have had to walk back what they said. That leaves fringe players like Alex Jones and Julian Assange to pick up the slack.
At best we're back where we started - an unsolved mystery. And a host of people trying to push a narrative before there is real evidence of anything.
-
Assange isn't the only witness. He's the only witness that you trust. Why, I have no idea. The police departments investigating the matter are also witnesses. I think the family would know Seth well enough too. They all say it is a botched robbery where the perpetrators ran away. But you don't trust them so what's the point of saying it? Assange has a history of outright lying or stretching the truth when it fits his narrative. He had a bunch of Trump supporters stay up all night based on his promise of evidence that would sink the Clinton campaign. Some of the people that stayed up all night were angry at him, others just let it slide because that's how the conspiracy mindset works. The usual conspiracy path is chugging along just fine. People with no connections to the case are making broad statements about knowledge that they don't have, while providing no evidence. Julian Assange hates the Clinton's and the DNC. He has ties to Russia. If that's your evidence it is bad evidence. Anyone with an objective mind coukd see that. Even Fox News of all places isn't running with that nut job.
You have a problem with filtering out good and bad sources. I don't know what else to tell you.
-
Start with this:
Pay attention to 1:03 mark when asked if he's the source, there's a nod.
Wheeler's investigation has never been the only evidence, and the claims you're making are incorrect. There's a lot of evidence that has nothing to do with Wheeler. Including the words of Assange himself.
No. Julian Assange is not evidence. It blows my mind you claim the media and the government are not to be trusted but you instantly just believe what Julian Assange says. I can't possibly convince you are wrong on that. How could I? So good luck. Please don't start writing letters to the Rich family. It isn't worth it. They've been through enough.
-
This is false. Just repeating a falsehood enough times doesn't magically make it true.
That's already happened.
But it could always get worse.
Ok show me the evidence. Please. While I wait here's the Fox DC affiliate's update on the story:
http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/254852337-story
WASHINGTON - EDITOR'S NOTE (5/17/17): We want to update you on a story you first saw on FOX 5 DC. We want to make an important clarification on claims that were made by Rod Wheeler, the private investigator hired by Seth Rich's family, whose services are being paid for by a third party.
What he told FOX 5 DC on camera Monday regarding Seth Rich's murder investigation is in clear contrast to what he has said over the last 48 hours. Rod Wheeler has since backtracked.
In an interview Monday, Wheeler told FOX 5 DC he had sources at the FBI confirming there was evidence of communication between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks. This is the verbatim of that exchange:
FOX 5 DC: You have sources at the FBI saying that there is information...
WHEELER: "For sure..."
FOX 5 DC: ...that could link Seth Rich to WikiLeaks?"
WHEELER: "Absolutely. Yeah. That's confirmed."
In the past 48 hours, Rod Wheeler has told other media outlets he did not get his information from FBI sources, contradicting what he told us on Monday.
Since Rod Wheeler backtracked Tuesday, FOX 5 DC attempted incessantly to communicate with him, but he didn't return calls or emails.
On Wednesday, just before our newscast, Wheeler responded to our requests via a telephone conversation, where he now backtracks his position and Wheeler characterizes his on-the-record and on-camera statements as "miscommunication."
When asked if Wheeler is still working for Seth Rich's family, Wheeler told FOX 5 DC the contract still stands-- ties have not been severed.
We reached out once again to the Rich family, and through a spokesperson the Rich family tells FOX 5 DC, "The family has relayed their deep disappointment with Rod Wheeler's conduct over the last 48 hours, and is exploring legal avenues to the family."
It's disgraceful that anyone ran with this nutjob's story. And right on cue I already see people on Twitter wondering why we haven't heard from the family directly. Soon it will be that the family is in on it, and soon after that the crazies will start trying to contact them with death threats. All because of an unsolved murder.
-
Update on the Seth Rich conspiracy nonsense:
-Rod Wheeler never produced the evidence he claimed he had and haven't heard from him since the family threatened to sue
-Seth's parents and brother have been actively asking people to stop connecting his death to nonsense conspiracy theories. Seth's brother wrote a letter to Sean Hannity directly:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/23/media/seth-rich-family-letter-hannity-fox-news/
-Fox News removed the the original story from their site and posted a statement saying it was removed because it didn't meet their editorial standards:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/23/statement-on-coverage-seth-rich-murder-investigation.html
There is nothing for this story to fall back on. A DNC staffer was murdered and his murder is unsolved. That's the extent of the evidence.
Won't be long now before crazy people are mailing letters to the family accusing them of a coverup. These conspiracies always play out in the same manner.
-
1) EJ had a better qb rating than Carr did his rookie year.
2) EJ's best game was a game winning drive against the Panthers, who finished #2 in the entire NFL in defense that season.
He also left the field with a lead against NE and helped beat the reigning SB champs.
And the whole point isn't to say if EJ would be a franchise qb. It was that his development sucked. A first time OC and qb coach from Syracuse. The GM who picked him didn't want to give up on him after one coaching staff.
Whaley didn't get to be a real GM here. I worry if Beane will get to since he basically got hired by the head coach.
1) What does that have to do with anything? Carr showed progress each year while EJ was treading water. And Carr didn't have amazing QB coaches helping him along. QBs have it or they don't. Every year we've put EJ out there he's looked worse than before.
2) That wasn't EJ's best game, it was EJ's best drive. He also had an interception on that drive overturned by a penalty, and Stevie was WIDE OPEN in the end zone. For a career defining drive it's absolutely pathetic. And the rest of that game he was below average.
Was Carr's development really good? What am I missing here? QBs develop into good players or they don't. Aaron Rodgers did not have an all-time great coach working with him behind the scenes, in fact Favre was notorious for not wanting to mentor him. I don't think coaches are as important as you think. I think in-game and production wise coaching can be important but I don't think the difference between a great QB and a bust is just coaching. Joe Flacco has world class coaching in Baltimore, why has he gotten so much worse since his Super Bowl?
-
Andrew Luck, a generational qb prospect, had Bruce Arians as his rookie year OC.
Your boy has Andy Reid. EJ had Nate Freakin' Hackett.
Derek Carr has Jack Del Rio, not exactly a great coach. His OC is Todd Downing who was our QB coach in 2014. Maybe coaches don't matter as much with QB success as you think. I mean there's obviously some wiggle room there, I'm sure EJ would have looked better with Belichick coaching him for example. But no way his ceiling was that far beyond where he ended up at. Once defenses realized how easy he was to defend it was over. His best statistical game was in his rookie year in a game where the wind delivered a fluke TD to TJ Graham. EJ never showed potential to be a long-term starter in the league and no amount of coaching could have fixed it.
-
Lesson learned: never take a project QB that you plan on keeping on the bench for a year. They never work out. The good news is we made for up for it by getting an additional 1st round pick for a similar prospect.
-
Brady to Gronk... Rodgers to Nelson... Dak to Dez... Kelly to Reed...
One of these things is not like the other
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesPalmerTV/status/865696374871994369
According to this NFL insider Tyrod already knows the system and Dennison has always thought Tyrod could run his system well. Sounds like he had a good week at OTAs too.
-
I just love how these leaks come out in dribs and drabs. Almost as if they're slow-rolling everything to keep it front-page.
@redsteeze:
Is there a transparent effort by media to drive Trump's presidency into the ground - Yes
Does he make it insanely easy for them - Yes
-
I believe in assessing risk properly. If my QB throws a pick on 3rd and 10 on the 50 yard line with 35 seconds left and it it intercepted deep it is the same as a punt. You will get more picks when you challenge a defense to make plays. Playing not to lose might feel right for a Jauron or a Rex Ryan but I prefer a bolder approach.
No I get it, only the stats you like matter, and the ones Tyrod is good in don't. Or there's some excuse. Even though the Super Bowl teams are #1 in the stat I chose (and playoff teams have a significant trend towards less turnovers) it doesn't matter.
What matters is YAC. Because it looks bad. Just like how every decision the Bills have made this offseason is bad because we didn't take Pat Mahomes. You have a one track mind. I haven't been getting as involved in the Tyrod discussions lately. I think all that could be said has been said. Join me in waiting and seeing jeff. The season is almost here.
-
That Denver team was an outlier. As was Carolina's run in 2015. But keep in mind I did not argue it was necessary to have a good yards per catch per attempt. It just is better than the alternative.
Patriots and Falcons were also tied for 1st in interceptions + fumbles. Bills were 2nd.
Not saying low interception numbers are necessary to have a good year. It's just better than the alternative.
-
from the article, a bit of an oddity:
35th in pass attempts in 2015? are they saying that 3 backups (in addition to the starters on those teams) had more pass attempts than Tyrod? last year too, another backup also had more attempts than Tyrod?
perhaps i am missing something simple here but i don't see it.
It's pass attempts per game. Meaning some backups threw more in their games than Tyrod did.
-
The White House has essentially confirmed the NYT reporting. They're not going to bother trying to deny it. I'm not sure if this is really any worse than the other stuff that's come out but add it to the pile anyways.
The WaPo story on the other hand is really dumb.
-
But from what we've read about Dennison, he isn't picking a scheme to fit Taylor. This is Dennison's scheme, and he thinks Taylor can run it.
Definitely, he trusts his own scheme over Roman's. The further we got away from Roman's offense the better the passing game looked, with the 2 best games coming in the second half of the season (Seattle and Miami). I'm pretty excited to see how this new offense develops.
-
I think you guys need to listen more carefully to what Dennison said.
He said the QB in his offense has to make pre-snap reads to get the team into the right play. He doesn't have to make a lot of post-snap reads. The play and the matchups that are apparent at the line of scrimmage determines where the ball is going. It doesn't have anything to do with Tyrod seeing the field scanning the defense as the play evolves, etc. It's come to the line, see what the defense is, take the snap, throw the ball. It's how KC and a lot of teams play.
He said he knows Tyrod can do it. How does he know? Well, he didn't say, but he had him in Baltimore and he's worked with him for a couple of months. He's probably watched Taylor work out. He knows Tyrod CAN do it; it's just a question of whether he WILL do it. So discussion about whether this is coachable, which Dennison answered, really isn't relevant. Obviously it's teachable - take the ball and throw it to THAT guy. The QB just has to get the team into the right play.
Although at first in response to the question about whether this is a competition, he said everyone competes, late in the interview he admitted that one of their objectives will be to get Tyrod a lot of reps. Tyrod is the guy. We'll see if he can do what Dennison wants.
Yup exactly right as usual Shaw. I got the sense that he watched the tape from the last couple years and couldn't understand why the ball was taking so long to get out of Tyrod's hands. My sense is that he thinks the scheme was the problem and trusts he can fix it. I loved this interview actually. He sure "sounds like" a coach, let's hope it translates.
-
I thought it was a great interview. Sounds like he hated last year's passing scheme and wants to work on the weaknesses we all saw.
-
Sacks are a bit of a function of the Greg Roman offense. Alex Smith was sacked 44 times in SF when they won 13 games. Combine Smiths and Kaepernick and you get 40. Kaepernick was sacked 39 and 52 times in his 2 full years under roman.
Tyrod was sacked 36 and 42 times at a sack rate of 8.7/8.8%. Pretty much in line with what Smith and Kaep did in their years under Roman.
Roman's pass play calling was horrible. The receivers' routes took too long to develop. It's no coincidence that the pass game improved after he left, with the best two games of Tyrod's career coming weeks after Lynn took over.
-
Hillary, as a senator, voted for restrictions on visas to Muslims . And yet, the legal argument being put forth is that Trump's campaign rhetoric makes the order unconstitutional, whereas under Hillary it would have been constitutional despite previous legislative action.
And you're honestly saying that that's a sound judicial principle? You're an idiot.
Voting on restrictions to visas that predominantly affect Muslims wouldn't have been unconstitutional - that's my point. The intent is what matters. The president can stop immigration from any country he damn well pleases too, but not if it's discriminating based on religion. Again, if Trump and surrogates hasn't made it clear what the intent of the EO was - to stop Muslims from entering the country - it probably would have passed muster.
I'm also not familiar with the vote you're talking about. If you could source me I'd appreciate it. My opinion on this subject is far from settled.
Oh and try and stay away from the ad hominem. Thanks.
-
So let me get this straight: You're trying to say that the judge asking if another candidate had won "and then chose to issue this particular order..." is somehow about campaign statements?
Well yeah. Trump made it a point during his campaign to call for a ban on Muslim immigrants. Rudy Giuliani went on the news and admitted outright Trump had asked him to do the Muslim ban but legally. These sorts of statements are admissible evidence pertaining to the intent of the EO. The EO in context of these statements, and only in context of these statements, was decided to be unconstitutional. If Clinton had won and issued the same exact order there would be no such context and the same argument wouldn't have been valid. So the EO would have stood.
If Trump and his surrogates had used any sort of restraint at all the EO would have stood. But because they constantly open their big mouths they are constantly incriminating themselves on future legal matters. He has no one to blame but himself.
Polian told by Bills exec Dareus must 'Ship up or Ship out"
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Fans would have hated it but we shouldn't have paid him. The Dareus contract arguably sunk Whaley more than any other decision. With so much cap space taken up by one player he was handicapped in what he could do.