transplantbillsfan

What a friggin weird first sentence to your post... Ex? Nah. But... ahem... girls I haven't dated but have otherwise... well... occupied... yeah, there have been a few. I have a couple things going for me, though: 1) I'm not on social media... no FB, IG, SC, etc. 2) I live in the most isolated population center in the world.

Go away

Interesting read. Thanks for posting. I disagree with a lot of it, though. First and foremost, I loathe the concept of tailoring our offense to the "duel-threat QB" concept. I hope Daboll is smart and cuts out designed runs altogether and just tells Allen when he's in the pocket (or out) he's free to run if he sees a lane and/or pressure is overwhelming and/or no one is open. Allen was largely ineffective on designed runs last year, but exceptional when scrambling. Cam Newton's career is getting cut shorter and shorter by the year as his offense still maintains his designed running as a major part of its arsenal. Seriously. So stupid. As a starter in his rookie year Allen was 5-6. 6-10 or 7-9 would be a step backwards. What a moron.

Actually I haven't gotten a flu shot in over a decade. Last time I got one I had a fever for an entire weekend that peaked at 102. And even getting the flu this week, I still probably won't be getting one next year. Flu isn't exactly common in Hawai'i. And I broke the fever in less than 4 days. Luckily (or unluckily) it coincided with the start of my Summer break, anyway.

Watched the 1st episode of this this week while I've been holed up in my house recovering from the flu. Really liked it. I definitely need to watch the rest, but gotta wait for the wife to be able to watch, too. Watched the 1st episode of Good Omens on Amazon Prime. I dig dry British humor so I'm liking that. I'm 5 episodes into Justified based on recommendations on here. Plus I like Timothy Olyphant. It's decent, but I hope it breaks from the procedural formula and I continue watching hoping/assuming it will based on the ending of the 1st episode. I've watched enough procedurals. Other than Jessica Jones later this month and Stranger Things next month, I don't know how Netflix is going to keep at least my interest. So much TV out there, it's virtually pointless to waste your time on any show you'd grade less than an A- yourself. Couldn't find the actual clip, but reminds me of this exchange on The Simpson's when Homer became a TV recapper: PETER SERAFINOWICZ: (As CEO) Homer, I'm the CEO of a major media conglomerate. We can't have you quit. You're one of America's top recappers. DAN CASTELLANETA: (As Homer) I had to quit. Recapping was ruining my marriage. There were so many shows. I couldn't keep up. SERAFINOWICZ: (As CEO) It's true. Currently, there are over 500 scripted shows on network cable and streaming. CASTELLANETA: (As Homer) Why are you making so many shows? No one could watch more than 300 of them. SERAFINOWICZ: (As CEO) Oh, we don't care if people watch. We just care if they subscribe for $13 a month. CASTELLANETA: (As Homer, gasping). SERAFINOWICZ: (As CEO) You see, if people subscribe and don't watch, then we don't actually have to make the shows. We just need viewers to believe they can watch them. CASTELLANETA: (As Homer) Fake shows - but what if people try to see them? SERAFINOWICZ: (As CEO) They won't because recappers like you will give those shows a B-. CASTELLANETA: (As Homer) No one ever watches a B-. But that's crazy. It could never work. SERAFINOWICZ: (As CEO) It already has. Are you familiar with the USA Network? CASTELLANETA: (As Homer) Sure. "Royal Pains," "Suits," "White Collar." SERAFINOWICZ: (As CEO) Have you ever seen any of those shows? CASTELLANETA: (As Homer) No, but somebody must have - surely, somebody. SERAFINOWICZ: (As CEO) There is no USA Network. There hasn't been for 20 years. It's just bus ads.

Isn't the 1st day of Summer June 21st??? Seasons don't change where I live, anyways. I chose an endless summer for life. I damn well better love it!

As someone who's literally getting over the flu right now, I completely disagree with your disapproval of Bruce not playing that game. Players playing with the flu is NOT that common. Michael Jordan's 38 point game with the flu was the exception, not the norm. That said, I think I'm a little shocked at the homerism. This poll should at the very least be close to even. Is everyone here who voted old enough to have watched both guys in their prime? It might be 1a and 1b, but Reggie White is definitely 1a to me. I've never seen a more dominant defensive player than the Rev. Sure, Bruuuuuuce is the 2nd most dominant, but he also benefited from a consistently better supporting cast.

Hilarious! Love it! Great kid! Remember when his character was questioned on draft day... potentially causing him to fall to #7 In the first place?

Holy friggin crap!!! Already?!?! Seriously??? 33 games. Barely 2 full seasons total in games. Huge gamble by the Eagles essentially on those 11 games in his 2nd season before his injury. Rookie year he caught everyone by surprise with his first 4 games and was awful for his last 12. Last year he was just "meh" as far as NFL starting QBs go. The Eagles are massively gambling on 2 things: 1) His 2nd season is more the norm than anomaly. 2) He can stay healthy.

Just watched this. Thanks for posting this! Lotta really interesting takeaways, but the absolute gem for me was what Allen said about what he thinks about when he approaches the line. He mentioned how Daboll (Bellicheck protege) has been training him to think situationally, like down and distance. In all the years we've watched Brady and the Patriots, how irritating is it that it seems like Bellicheck and Brady are the masters of situational football while most other teams seem to view it as an afterthought?

And on a side note, I'm really finding it hilarious how much @DC Tom is annoyed I'm ignoring him. Sheesh... the way that old racist curmudgeon is using 3rd parties just to try to reach me is actually almost flattering. And all of you 3rd parties are happy to abide... guess he's got ya by the panties. Well, nonetheless, thanks for the attention.

Never needed a lawyer in my life, either. Doubt I ever will.

Nay... Clearly arguable. Strongly arguable. But I already posted a handful of arguments and don't care to spend more time here... So have your fun!

Ah.... a misunderstanding apparently. When I said "unprecedented, even unconstitutional," the "arguably" was rhetorically implicit before the "even."

Well you lost that wager you arrogant moron. Yes, you must be the lawyer who knows all and they know nothing. You can't even concede something simple that might help you out like that reading the constitution 240+ years after it was written involves interpretation of the words of men living in a vastly different world under vastly different conditions. Pathetic. Glad you aren't my lawyer.

Bro. There are plenty of practicing/practiced lawyers from those lists. So that was an empty wager then. But puff out your chest some more

Again. The whole "Biden rule" thing is mythology. “If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate [in naming a Supreme Court nominee], or moderates his selection absent consultation, then his nominee may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.” Literally the speech from which the Biden rule was adopted.

Just curious... was this wager based on your combined years vs ALL the added combined years of the 400+... actually now more like 700 lawyers, Deans, law professors, etc. I've referenced?

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/nearly_250_corporate_lawyers_sign_letter_urging_obama_and_senate_leaders_to/ When a vacancy on the court arises, the Constitution is clear ... Article II, Section 2 states that the President 'shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court' ... Though the Senate may ultimately choose not to consent to the president's nominee, it would be unprecedented for the Senate to refuse to perform its 'advice and consent' role in this context. Not only does the Constitution direct the sitting president to nominate an individual to fill a vacancy on the court no matter whether it is an election year, nearly one third of all presidents have nominated a justice in an election year who was eventually confirmed

Can you explain your justification for McConnell's 100% unprecedented action in the previous 240 years of history in the United States of America and your dissent from the public opinion of several hundred constitutional lawyers and professors then? Or do you just want to keep namecalling?

So are you a lawyer?

Dumbass? You're a real piece of work. Way to prove that this place is just a cesspool. You should probably get back to your InfoWars. So you're a lawyer then?

Yeah... let's not listen to over 400 lawyers and law professors... let's instead listen to the old racist curmudgeon. His thoughts on constitutional law are clearly more important and credible than the 400+ professionals who study the ins and outs of the constitution.

Article 2 section 2: "The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law" Letters and statements from those who DO teach constitutional law: https://www.acslaw.org/press_release/top-constitutional-law-scholars-say-no-exception-to-the-rule-in-filling-supreme-court-vacancy-in-election-year/ "the Senate's constitutional duty to 'advise and consent'—the process that has come to include hearings, committee votes, and floor votes—has no exception for election years. In fact, over the course of American history, there have been 24 instances in which presidents in the last year of a term have nominated individuals for the Supreme Court and the Senate confirmed 21 of these nominees." https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/03/10/letter-experts-president-supreme-court-nominee "It is technically in the power of the Senate to engage in aggressive denial on presidential nominations. But we believe that the Framers' construction of the process of nominations and confirmation to federal courts, including the Senate's power of "advice and consent," does not anticipate or countenance an obdurate refusal by the body to acknowledge or consider a president's nominee, especially to the highest court in the land. The refusal to hold hearings and deliberate on a nominee at this level is truly unprecedented and, in our view, dangerous ... The Constitution gives the Senate every right to deny confirmation to a presidential nomination. But denial should come after the Senate deliberates over the nomination, which in contemporary times includes hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and full debate and votes on the Senate floor. Anything less than that, in our view, is a serious and, indeed, unprecedented breach of the Senate's best practices and noblest traditions for much of our nation's history" https://www.afj.org/press-room/press-releases/over-350-law-professors-urge-senators-to-fulfill-their-constitutional-duty "fulfill your constitutional duty to give President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a prompt and fair hearing and a timely vote."

And he STILL did something completely unprecedented, even unconstitutional. The Biden rule hypothetical had to do with a Supreme Court Justice retiring in an effort of a kind of one to one replacement, not unexpectedly dying. Besides, Biden also said: “If the president consults and cooperates with the Senate [in naming a Supreme Court nominee], or moderates his selection absent consultation, then his nominee may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.” 13 Presidents have filled Supreme Court vacancies from Washington all the way to Reagan. 17 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed in a Presidential election year, including Anthony Kennedy who was appointed by a Republican President and unanimously confirmed by a Democratic Senate. Garland was the first Supreme Court nominee to not even receive a hearing in over 100 years.