Capco

With regards to the concept of interchangeability, that's always what I thought made the base 3-4 two-gap defense special. Ideally, each LB in those defenses had to be able to pass rush an NFL offensive lineman on any given play. In a standard 4-man pass rush, that means the offensive line never truly knows where the fourth rusher is coming from. It also gives you the inherent flexibility to rush the passer with only 3 (beefy) linemen while dropping 8 other players into pass coverage. Granted, the modern NFL rarely employs base defenses as the norm anymore, but I still think this example illustrates your same point from a defensive perspective. On the offensive side, I remember hearing about 4 TE packages being the next gen thing during the Gronk/Hernandez days. Although we never got to that point, I believe it's still analogous to your "seven safeties" reference. If every eligible receiver is an equal threat in the running game and the passing game, that creates serious challenges for opposing defenses.

What does "underdeveloped at winning at the line of scrimmage" even mean for a quarterback?

Best post in this thread and doesn't get anywhere near the attention that it should by comparison.

Businesses and the wealthy used to pay a lot more of their earnings in taxes before the 1980s, and a greater percentage of the populace was in the middle class. Then, new tax incentives for businesses shifted their excess capital from traditional reinvestment into new technology or workforce efficiency/productivity gains, and instead put that money towards financial instruments. EnRon started out in 1985 as a merger of two natural gas companies that actually provided a tangible commodity/service, but by the time of its demise the vast majority of EnRon's genuine earnings came from its traders. Moving money around from one place to another (e.g., trading) can be an easy way to make more money, but moving money around doesn't actually "create" anything tangible of consumable value, like natural gas. I'm all for a simpler tax code, but it must be more progressive than our current tax system. Fewer loopholes, tax incentives for traditional capital reinvestment into non-financial industries, higher top marginal rates, a 28% capital gains tax, and a concerted effort to get the working poor into the middle class itself... that's what we need to focus on, imo.

That comment might have been worded better, but considering the context (i.e., a thread about a rich person attempting to avoid paying taxes) the comment was clearly in reference to people who should be paying taxes (and have plenty of money to do so and live comfortably) but go through loopholes that other rich people lobbied into the tax code. It was not a reference to those who are not required to pay taxes because they are exempt from doing so.

AOC showed the kid her bewbies while Bernie Sanders bankrolled the op with his gold from China… Al franken tried to grab AOC's bewbies, but that had nothing to do with the assassination attempt… Soros hired fake secret service agents and Alec Baldwin turned out to be the actual shooter.

He's beyond any man now. He's elevated his status to The Orange Bull.

NGL that is a pretty funny take lol.

The Orange Bull.

Three men were convicted of supporting a plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, the Democratic governor of Michigan.

Lmao. Definitely a fake. It already got deleted. Seriously though... sometimes I genuinely wonder how many of you guys would've purchased a "Jump to Conclusions" mat with different conclusions written on it that you could jump to.

Well, that obviously means Biden had nothing to do with it. Nothing like this would be a spur of the moment decision. It would be planned months in advance. Which in turns means that nothing like that tweet would ever have seen the light of day to begin with. It was just a tweet using very common parlance that looks very bad in hindsight, and nothing more (assuming the tweet and its deletion are factual statements to begin with).

Earlier today on another forum, I discussed the limits of the First Amendment's protections on speech. Interestingly enough, the case law governing this topic, namely Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), offers the following test for evaluating attempts by the government to punish inflammatory speech: "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." In other words, it's possible that years of a slow trickle of rhetoric that leads to lawless action qualifies as protected speech under the First Amendment, because it lacks the imminence element in the Brandenburg test. Conversely, the former president's rhetoric that incited the violence on J6 probably does meet the imminence element in the Brandenburg test.

I assume you're drunk but this is still completely unacceptable. We are better than this.

I can buy that. And if this POS that wanted to circumvent our electoral process through extrajudicial means is purported as being a far left winger Antifa commie, will you buy that as legitimate and not representative of Democrats in general?