HappyDays
-
Posts
22,192 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by HappyDays
-
-
It's probably not a big deal but players obtained in trade ups will always have higher standards. If the Bills don't want the negative attention they should stop trading up. It bites them in the ass more often than it helps them.
-
http://ijr.com/opini...t-course-trump/
This is, essentially, what ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat admitted yesterday during an en banc hearing on the travel ban in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, during an exchange with Judge Paul Niemeyer (video above thanks to NTK network):
JUDGE NIEMEYER: We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump, won the presidency, and then chose to issue this particular order...Do I understand that just in that circumstance the executive order should be honored?
OMAR JADWAT: Yes your honor, I think in that case it could be constitutional.
This was a huge - and potentially costly - admission by Jadwat. It effectively conceded that the executive order is, in fact, facially constitutional; that is, he agreed that nothing about the text of the order is illegal (so much for the passionate arguments about statutory violations or due process rights!)
Their legal argument was that comments made by Trump and his surrogates during the campaign indicated that Trump planned on banning certain immigrants for religious reasons. Since the Clinton campaign didn't make those comments, that argument would have failed for her. Which means her doing it would have been constitutional under the argument that was outlined.
My usual question with articles like this: is the author simply ignorant, or is he intentionally misleading his ignorant readers? I can forgive the first but not the second.
-
nothing confirmed yet but the account who broke that news also broke the Schoen news early
Fair enough, thanks.
-
If it's this big and this important and this bad...any idea why Comey sat on it until two weeks after he was fired?
Incompetence?
He wants subpoenas and public hearings. It's very obvious what's he's doing. This isn't the only memo. More will come out.
-
Has this actually been confirmed or just a rumor based on that one tweet?
-
Do you have a copy of the memos and email that he circulated within the FBI?
The House Oversight Committee requested the memos by May 24. We'll have them within a week. Seems likely to me that Comey specifically had this memo leaked so that Congress would subpoena all his memos and also have him testify in public. The news cycle on this is just beginning.
-
This is perfect. According to Rosie O'Donnell....
The only things missing are question marks and "PROFIT!!!"
Summer of Meltdown is best summer of all.
Why pay attention to Rose O'Donnell? She looks for attention and you give it to her.
The I word is getting thrown around after the newest report, and this report actually can be corroborated if Congress subpoenas the supposed memo. But I think Democrats realize it's better politics to let Trump linger in office as long as possible. 2018 will likely be a bloodbath for Republicans similar to 2010.
-
Yes, but without one shred of evidence you believe that Trump colluded with the Russians in last November's election.
No I don't. I think he's an idiot who surrounded himself with other idiots.
-
As I wrote above, the Washington Post is the US version of RT - yet people don't question it or aren't even aware of that fact.
I'm not arguing to distrust every media source, or even every journalist working for the WP/NYT et al. I do argue for people being aware that the agenda of "fake news" is not exclusive to Russia and our own press and country engages in that kind of information warfare as well.
The Washington Post has a bias, of course. That doesn't mean it's the same as literal state-sponsored media. This is a wild exaggeration. It also doesn't explain the lack of evidence in the Rich case. So far the evidence is - 1) Rich worked for the DNC. 2) His murderers were never caught. Everything else comes back to the evidence this investigator supposedly has which will "soon come out." Uh huh, we'll be waiting on that one for a while. In his Fox segment he says nonsensical things like "When no one comes forward with tips about the murder, that's when investigators start looking at other ideas." Yeah, no. Police don't expect to solve murders from top hotlines. He's BSing. If his case was stronger he wouldn't have to lie about his relationship with the family, he would have consulted with them before going on the media circuit, and he wouldn't spew out rambling nonsense that anyone with a basic familiarity of investigative procedures could call out.
This is the same nutjob that was talking about the threat of "lesbian gangs" several months ago. He has never shown a lick of credibility but you believe him anyways because...? I hope you realize people like him make a lot of money off of people like you. It's only funny until the victim's family starts getting harassed and I'm guessing it won't be long now if this follows the trajectory of other conspiracy theories that the families deny.
And guess what - at least one credible outlet would pick up the story if there was something to it. Newspapers want to sell. A legit story about a massive cover up of the murder of a DNC staffer would be huge! This is like when creationists try to say scientists are trying to cover up evidence of creationism. Nope, the evidence just doesn't meet expert standards. This is a common myth, that institutions are profiting from covering up massive conspiracies rather than just reporting on them.
Like I said I'm not gonna go point by point in this particular case. I've done that before with 9/11 conspiracies, Newtown conspiracies, moon landing conspiracies. I'm not doing it again with Seth Rich. It's not worth my time. They all follow the same path and the same broad rules apply to them all.
-
Whatever, man. There's a reason the playoff drought is almost old enough to vote. If whining about others whining makes you feel better about the hire, good for you.
The reason the playoff drought is 17 years long is because of the Pegulas? I actually largely agree with you, I'm not all that inspired by the McDermott and Beane hired. But stop referring to events that happened way before the Pegulas were ever in charge.
-
Easy to say when you admit you don't have the time nor inclination to filter out the bad information yourself.
You're showing how little you've followed this story since it broke, and exposing your own biases. It's not just "some bloggers" who think this, Assange himself all but confirmed it.
The only ones in this story pushing half truths that don't match up are the DNC and the MSM.
But you'd know that if you took your own advice about filtering out bad information;)
Remember when Assange kept a bunch of his followers up all night after promising supposed documents that would put Hillary in prison? And then the documents never came? Fool me once...
-
This is incorrect and spin applied after the fact to confuse you. Wheeler was not hired by his parents, he absolutely was hired by Rich's family (do some archive searching, it's all there in the reports from last summer). They're trying to trip you up with linguistic tricks.
What's hilarious is you're telling me to learn how to filter out bad information while simultaneously admitting you don't have the time nor the inclination to look into the story yourself. Meaning, you're accepting the MSM version of this story as fact without doing any due diligence on your part.
That's called irony.
These conspiracies all have the same MO. Half-truths, excuses for why things don't match up, and a certainty that the mainstream media must be covering it up. Of course the important caveat is lack of real evidence. In the original interview Wheeler said new evidence would come to light this morning on his Fox News segment. Shockingly it did not! And it never will. The police and the family all know the conspiracy is BS. Only some bloggers think they've uncovered a massive conspiracy. It's no different than the thousands of other ones that plague the internet. Come back to me when there is actual evidence, not dots that youre choosing to connect because they fit the narrative.
-
Your facts are wrong.
Wheeler was hired by the family, he is not the only one who makes this claim. Assange himself has all but confirmed it last summer. If you paid attention to this story as it broke you would understand this and the pressure being exerted on the family since the news hit.
The "family spokesman" you're citing is a man named Brad Bauman is a DNC spokesman:
The DNC wouldn't turn over the servers to the FBI. Ever ask yourself why?
Could it be that the metadata and information on those servers could be used by the FBI to link the 44 thousand emails Rich leaked to wikileaks to those servers, verifying him as the leaker.
Nah. The DNC just didn't trust the FBI to look at their servers.
Remember this too... who was just hired by the Washington Post?
And who, if Rich was murdered for leaking, more than likely ordered the hit?
Ah, right. This guy:
The same guy who tweeted this when Comey was fired: "Didn't you know you're supposed to wait until Saturday night to massacre people investigating you?"
When was Rich killed? On a Saturday night.
When did the Washington Post release the Russian story yesterday? Almost exactly one hour after the Seth Rich "news" broke.
Your first fact is wrong. The family didn't hire Wheeler. He lied to the reporter when he told her that they did. Everything else in his story crumbles under that. Sorry I don't have time to debunk every little piece of evidence you think you have. It would take all day and you wouldn't care. There would be more sources on this by now. Learn to filter out bad information.
Tell you what - if it turns out the family did hire him I'll give this story more attention.
-
Erick Erickson of The Resurgent backs up what other sources are saying about Trump revealing classified info:
http://theresurgent.com/i-know-one-of-the-sources/
I tend to take these stories about the President with a grain of salt. We have seen key details of a number of salacious stories retracted within 48 hours. The media hates the President so much that theyll run a negative story about him without very much provocation. Anti-Trump sources embedded within the administration in the career civil service, etc. will leak to the press and confirmation bias sets in.
What sets this story apart for me, at least, is that I know one of the sources. And the source is solidly supportive of President Trump, or at least has been and was during Campaign 2016. But the President will not take any internal criticism, no matter how politely it is given. He does not want advice, cannot be corrected, and is too insecure to see any constructive feedback as anything other than an attack.
So some of the sources are left with no other option but to go to the media, leak the story, and hope that the intense blowback gives the President a swift kick in the butt. Perhaps then he will recognize he screwed up. The President cares vastly more about what the press says than what his advisers say. That is a real problem and one his advisers are having to recognize and use, even if it causes messy stories to get outside the White House perimeter.
I am told that what the President did is actually far worse than what is being reported. The President does not seem to realize or appreciate that his bragging can undermine relationships with our allies and with human intelligence sources. He also does not seem to appreciate that his loose lips can get valuable assets in the field killed.
You can call these sources disloyal, traitors, or whatever you want. But please ask yourself a question if the President, through inexperience and ignorance, is jeopardizing our national security and will not take advice or corrective action, what other means are available to get the President to listen and recognize the error of his ways?
This is a real problem and I treat this story very seriously because I know just how credible, competent, and serious as well as seriously pro-Trump, at least one of the sources is.
Actually, hearing this from him makes me think the story really is worse than what's already been reported.
-
This is conspiracy nonsense. It's exactly one person claiming this, Rod Wheeler - a Fox News contributor who made sure to plug his own segment in the interview. He also claimed that the Rich family hired him, which was already refuted by the family this morning:Seth Rich, back in the news:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexcampbell/seth-rich-family-refutes-report
Don't believe every random crackpot you hear on television. Before you know it random yahoos will be sending letters to the family blasting them for accepting money from the DNC to cover up their son's murder, which is what happened to Newtown, CT families when a bunch of ridiculous conspiracy theories started about that horrible tragedy.
Sometimes tragedies just happen. Attempted robberies turn into murder. And then some idiot with a show tries to politicize it. Don't be so gullible.
Anyone who seriously believes that guy is going to release smoking gun evidence this morning is smoking something of their own.
-
NYT running the same story now... shocking.
CNN is treating it as "bombshell" news, Wolf can't say that word enough in one sentence.
"If all of this is true", is the qualifier everyone is using at the start of a five minute prattle about how it's the end of the world.
... But as Tom said, the president can declassify whatever he pleases whenever he pleases. So, this is a story about how he's an idiot at best/worst.
In other words... water is wet.
CNN is exaggerating. It's just another dumb moment from our dumb president. Americans won't really care unless it comes out that he actually sold state secrets or personally rigged the election, something juicy like that. As far as presidential scandals go this is pretty light. I do love the NYT and CNN suddenly pretending to care about national security. Very amusing.
-
This guy gets paid for writing this garbage?
You can sometimes hear him on WGR pretending he knows which way Tyrod is supposed to throw the ball
-
3 playoff appearances, one as recently as last year, during the Bills drought...but, sure.
The difference between the Bills and Dolphins last year was coaching. Our offense was better, their defense was better. We would have made the playoffs simply by not allowing 200 rushing yards to Miami in each game. Hopefully Rex getting fired is addition by subtraction.
-
I am talking about dead cap. You are talking about something else. So stick to the topic or not.
Doesn't matter if it's dead cap. If we pay Tyrod $4.25 million to not play while simultaneously paying a rookie salary for our starting QB, the end result is that we're paying less than $10 million total into the QB position. That is much less than almost every Super Bowl team could hope to devote to that position. Realistically the only scenario in which the Tyrod dead cap could hurt us is if we decide to go for Brees or Rivers right before their retirement or something like that. I don't see that happening either way so I'm not concerned. I know you don't think Tyrod performed well enough to stay on the team but we are not paying him much at all. The sunk cost is minimal. We couldn't have spent the money in a better place, not if the goal is to win the Super Bowl.
-
Well, this is where I disagree. I don't see upside. I think smarter cap management would have been to move on and not lock ourselves into 8.5 dead cap hoping Tyrod becomes something great under his 3rd offensive coordinator for the team.
Anyways, enough on Tyrod. I hope our future contracts are smarter and more cap friendly. We can't afford to pay people not to play.
The way I see it Jeff, no Super Bowl team is spending less than $15 million per year on their quarterback, and that's probably the bare minimum. Maybe the Patriots are the exception because they have the sweetest deal going with Brady. But in my philosophy I'm always willing to spend on the quarterback position until I find somebody, because it literally doesn't matter until I do anyways. If I'm not spending money on a quarterback I'm not winning so I might as well spend on what I have and see what happens. I'm not as sold on Tyrod as my posts may make me out to be, but I am sold on the Bills' current process for finding a QB.
-
You can split it over 2 years but it still adds up to 8,500,000 dead cap. Dumb contract.
4.25 mil in dead cap per year. Which is what matters jeff. I'd be willing to sacrifice $10 mil in dead cap per year if it meant keeping a below average QB with upside. It's too important. Until we find the surefire QB we're not going anywhere anyways so what's a measly 4 mil? You think we're making the Super Bowl either of those years if Tyrod doesn't step up? It's just weird to me you're willing to use a 1st round pick or more to draft a QB that's never played a down in the NFL, but you're terrified by the prospect of wasting $4 mil in salary cap to see if our current QB can take the next step. Can't it be both?
-
Good article, thanks for posting. Sounds to me like Beane is less sold on Tyrod than McDermott is and I don't mind that at all. I like the mindset of always trying to solidify the QB position. Keep your starter but don't stop looking for improvement. That's the way it should be.
-
Andy Reid has already stated Mahomes is getting better every practice. A scary thought
Have you been reading Kansas City rookie minicamp reports? Just go root for them if you love Mahomes that much. Also are you serious with this? EJ Manuel had similar things said about him. Pump the brakes a bit.
-
Man, that cornerback was burnt toast! Oh wait, he looks familiar...
Based on exactly one play. Good work. Of course what you didn't mention is in that game Mahomes had a 50% completion and 6.6 YPA. But I mean he had a deep completion on a play where the CB stumbled so... superstar?
Trump Fires James Comey!
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Yes it is. It's called evidence. And while I have seen compelling arguments that campaign statements should not be admissible as evidence, the argument that the lawyer "admitted" that Clinton could have done it constitutionally still is invalid. He didn't admit it, it was a part of the argument. I would bet anything the context of that discussion was about Trump's campaign statements.