HappyDays
-
Posts
22,158 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by HappyDays
-
-
What's ridiculous is your statement. No one at "our level" knows the laws??
So, you're outraged over Trump's tweets but not outraged at all that you think we live in a democratic republic where the people aren't allowed to know the laws that affect their constitutional rights to due process and privacy??
This might be a blue ribbon winner for stupidiest and saddest post of the month.
OF COURSE that outrages me - I said so in my first post on the last page. But that doesn't have anything to do with Trump's accusations. And it comes from both parties.
-
Like, maybe, fundraising off it?
Asking for money from his most loyal supporters is not evidence of anything, come on. Does Trump strike you as the type of person that says he feels "somewhat vindicated?" If his accusations were supported, he would be shouting all over Twitter about how BIGLY this is.
-
Goddamnit I typed a reply and deleted the whole thing. To sum it up quickly, I am very concerned that intelligence agencies can gather "incidental communications" like this regularly, and I said as much in my first post. But Trump isn't going to stop that. He wants Snowden arrested and executed for treason. He isn't on your side with this, he's on his own side as usual.
-
Yeah...in third-period study hall. When's the last time you ever heard "incidental communications" referenced in counter-espionage investigation?
I haven't heard ANY of this stuff ever, it is all very unique. It's clear you want to go on believing that there was some nefarious plot by the Obama administration to wiretap Trump for, well, that part isn't clear. Going by the available evidence including Nunes's comments today that is obviously not what happened. What Nunes said is that members of Trump's team were being recorded as part of an investigation, and whenever Trump spoke to them his comments of course would be recorded too. That is the "incidental communication." As to how legal it would be to use those conversations in court, I have no clue and probably most legal experts would tell you there is not a clear answer. But regardless, Trump's accusations were wrong.
Considering that this is critical to the debate at hand, maybe you should elaborate, or stay out of the conversation?
Ridiculous, no one at our level knows the laws. A lot of this stuff is literally handled by secret courts, that is what the Snowden leak revealed. But the legality doesn't matter. What Trump said was wrong - Obama did not order wiretaps of Trump Tower to spy on Trump, and this was confirmed by Nunes today. Everything else just confirms what we already knew, which is that Trump and his associates are being investigated by the FBI for potential espionage with Russia. I'm sure Trump feels "somewhat vindicated" but if there was more to this he'd be bragging about it endlessly.
-
Then maybe you can explain the legality of this incidental capture of communications between two US citizens, and exactly how Trump's communications fall under FISA orders?
You would have to ask the NSA. If you're asking me to elaborate on spying laws, I can't even begin to. But incidental communications get picked up, that is what Rep. Nunes was referring to.
-
The question was - how can Trump's communication be incidentally obtained?
I answered the question, I suggest you read my post again. The first sentence should do.
-
Please tell me how it's possible to "incidentally" pick up Trump's conversations, if the targets were foreigners communicating with members of his team?
If members of his own team were under investigation, obviously his communications with them would be incidentally recorded. Nunes is clarifying this right now in a press conference. He confirmed that Obama did not order wiretaps on Trump, and that any communication picked up was incidental. Trump himself said he feels "somewhat vindicated." If there was anything to this, that would not be his choice of words.
-
It was clarified that Trump communications were picked up incidentally while wiretapping members of his transition team and foreign agents. Which is a far cry from what Trump said, that Obama personally ordered wiretaps of his communications in Trump Tower. The man remains an untrustworthy buffoon. The bigger concern, and it's not exactly news, is that "incidental communications" are now regularly picked up by intelligence agencies. That should concern anyone Democrat or Republican, but neither side wants that to stop. Our privacy rights are all but gone.
-
If the NFL wants to catch up with modern times, they need a subscription service run entirely online. I don't even have cable anymore, neither do a lot of people in their 20s like me. I would pay $100 a year for a service like NFL Gamepass that also gave you access to live streams of every game, and I'm sure many fans would agree.
-
Yes.
Rex tried to make Dareus a NT, and that is not what he is.
I hated the way Rex used Dareus. We were paying him $100 million to plug gaps in the line. What an absolute waste. His "genius" scheme requires too many specific types of players.
-
There is so much hypocrisy on both sides, it's not even funny. The Republican's biggest complaints about HRC were her lying, investigations and corruption. Where are the same complaints about Trump? On the flipside, the Democrats have now become obstructionists after detesting the resistance of the prior eight years.
I'm an independent who thinks both sides have some good ideas, and that agreeing to some middle ground is the only long-term solution. A large number of young people like me view this two party, polarized system as an inefficient joke.
I'm not trying to call anyone out. I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness on both sides.
Great post, exactly how I feel. Clinton or Trump would BOTH have been under FBI investigation, no matter who won. That's how far the parties have fallen, neither one can muster the strength to nominate a person not under FBI investigation. And neither side can see their own hypocrisy.
-
He ran way too many kickoffs out of the endzone for my liking. But I guess that's more a coaching thing.
-
People here complain about the BBMBers but you can't even get through one page of a highlight video thread without the local trolls showing up.
-
It's way too early to start thinking about how the team will look. We still have the draft, then training camp where there will be surprise cuts, then another wave of free agency where we will pick up a couple cast offs which has been Whaley's strength. Even still we will need to see what injuries we pick up before the season even starts. And I would bet Whaley fills at least one major hole in FA or the draft. We got a long way to go.
-
I've already given up on the idea that the Bills will have a real #2 this year. At this point I'm just hoping we have two #3s and Sammy actually stays healthy.
-
It matters not the circumstances of the thread. The fact remains that QBs don't play against other QBs. They're not even on the field at the same time, so it's a silly notion.
And I understood the point of the thread.
Gov. David Patterson could be the Raiders' QB ... and the Raiders would still beat the Bills next year.
So what you're saying is you think the Bills will be a 2-14 type of team. Alright then. In that circumstance I give EJ a fair shot. Depends though, is he going to completely meltdown and hand TDs to us?
-
Roman was trying to grow and develop TT - you saw at at the end of 2015 with the patterns and throws after the Bills were eliminated. He was trying to open the offense up and in 2016 the offense did not function against Baltimore and although it produced against NYJ - it was enough that Rex moved on. The route tree and the throws were simplified and TT had some good games and some bad games, but nothing that screams long term starter.
I thought he did open up the offense well in the last game of 2015, the Jets game that most everyone agreed Tyrod played very well in. But the Ravens game was horrible. It's like he dusted off a playbook from 1980 in that game. The Jets game was not much better. The offense moved at a much better pace with Lynn at the helm, just about every statistical measure was better under Lynn than it was under Roman, and that was without Watkins for most of the year. I think Lynn was trying to grow and develop Tyrod, and you see that in the Miami game. Our offense looked VERY different against Miami. I was screaming at the TV wondering why it wasn't like that all year. Deep drops for Tyrod, a pocket with room to move, crossing routes. This is one reason I really wanted Lynn back next year and I still am not fully supportive of the McDermott hire but we will see. Tyrod at least has familiarity with Dennison and some of the returning players.
-
Great question. A "Tyrod Fanboy" is a strawman created by about 5% of the posters on TBD who are irrationally anti-Tyrod. Of those irrationally anti-Tyrod posters, 95% of them are as such because they used to be irrationally pro-EJ themselves and were upset when Tyrod won the job and even stooped so low as to claim that there was a conspiracy involved (much like Trump claiming he didn't win the popular vote because of illegal votes). In any event, in the countless years, days and hours I have spent on this website, I have never encountered one poster who has tried to prop Tyrod Taylor up as more than he is: a below average to potentially average but STARTING NFL QB. You would think by seeing the term "Tyrod Fanboy" flung around so haphazardly, that there would be people on this website somewhere insisting he is already, or will be at some point in the near future, an elite NFL QB. In actuality, no such people exist. So when you see the term "Tyrod Fanboy," it is ex-EJ Fanboys (irrationally optimistic fans, mind you) bitterly lashing out at posters who acknowledge reality: that Tyrod Taylor is a below average- but worthy of starting- NFL QB, as opposed to a complete abomination.
It was exactly the same on BBMB. Not all, but for many of the anti-Tyrod people you could trace their animosity all the way back to when EJ lost the starting competition. Very strange group of people. At least one on the other board still believed EJ was the better QB.
-
. I wish him nothing but the best.
He didn't return the favor.
-
Quarterbacks don't play each other; teams do.
And under no circumstance will the Raiders lose to the Bills in 2017.
Except of course the circumstance that the thread is about, in which EJ Manuel is their QB. In that circumstance the Bills would win easily, unless you missed his 3 games these past two seasons. I don't know if there's a team in the NFL that could beat the 2017 Bills with EJ as their starter. Yes I say that confidently without knowing how the draft and FA play out. He is so horifically bad and the Raiders don't have a good defense, so it would likely be a blowout actually. I guess if Lynch goes there they'd have an outside shot if the Bills are really bad?
And that's about as much time as I'll ever spend again talking about EJ Manuel. Please let it die.
If the question is EJ vs Tyrod, I don't think Tyrod is good but obviously would rather have him to win. If it's who will win Oakland vs Buffalo with Taylor starting vs EJ starting for Oakland I think the Raider win .
From all reports EJ was a good guy good teammate. Most backup QBs are pretty terrible.
Yeah, a great guy and teammate who can't play quarterback at a professional level. When you say "most backup QBs are pretty terrible," does that go to prove that the Bills would lose to EJ? Not following that logic at all. The Bills lately have beaten terrible teams easily, for the most part. We aren't losing to the EJs of the NFL. I don't understand how anyone could think the EJ-led Raiders have any shot of beating, well just about anyone by my estimation.
-
No, that's not how the courts are supposed to work. The courts are supposed to rely on and interpret the law. They are not supposed to judge on the intent of the parties involved, particularly when that intent is represented by statements that are not evidence involved in the lawsuit (which the Supreme Court has ruled on, very recently). And there is nowhere in the law where it's stated an executive order is unconstitutional because the executive issuing the order is an inveterate !@#$. Nor does the fact that the courts have a sad recent history of inventing law on the spot (Boumediene v. Bush, the fiasco surrounding Florida's 2000 vote counts, Obergefell v. Hodges) make it right.
You might be right, with all the BS flying around these days it is hard to know who I should trust. I do not trust Trump but God knows I don't trust Democrats either.
-
I guess I'm not understanding, isn't this how courts work? They rely on evidence. If Trump and his associates are constantly talking about a Muslim ban, and they're not even being subtle about it, why would that evidence not be used in a court of law? It goes to prove that the intent of the law is unconstitutional. I never understood why people thought his second travel ban would pass muster, but I didn't understand all the arguments too well to be honest.You want to spend five minutes thinking about how utterly !@#$ed the country will be if the courts decide rhetoric on the campaign trail carries the same weight as law?
My interpretation of that whole quote, and the court agrees, is "Trump told me he wanted a Muslim ban done in a legal manner, so we found a way to do it without calling it a Muslim ban." Which implies the intent was to discriminate against Muslims, they just wanted to hide the intent. I mean he literally comes right out and says what Trump really wanted. Imagine a more competent administration had done this, if would have easily gotten through the courts. The Trump admin messed up bad. Now you have Trump going to rallies saying things like "we should just bring back the first ban and expand it, that's what I wanted to do in the first place." I guarantee statements like that will be used in future court arguments. It is clear to me Trump doesn't actually care about protecting the country, he just likes to hear cheers and applause. I am not against the idea of having stronger vetting or outright immigration bans from dangerous countries, so I hate that he's ruined a chance to try it out. -
To quote Rex Ryan himself as he walked out the door in Buffalo:
I do not wish him good luck.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/rex-ryan-on-the-buffalo-bills-i-dont-wish-them-luck/
That was a classless move on his part, and for all the talk about Rex being a player's coach he sure went out of his way a few times to blame the players for his failures.
-
LMAO we can't get WR's any guess why?
Some day you might learn the game of football, if you keep believing in yourself
Tyrod Taylor's Highlights
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by HappyDays