SectionC3

I say no. Last I checked, Jesus was a brown, politically-persecuted migrant who also happened to be a socialist. But I'm curious what the evangelicals/fake Christians on the board think. Fire away!

MAHA, right? Make it even harder for the middle class to eat right. Meanwhile, mister congestive heart failure is sucking down Big Macs like there's no tomorrow. (In his case, that might not be far away if the "cankles" and talk of heaven are any indication.)

Seems like you've been thinking about Epstein a lot lately, too. And me. When you're not being a Hilly Fan. You're a weird guy.

They have no principles. Other than they're against the libs. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Delete "exactly" and I agree. They aren't conservative. Tariffs, taxes, state ownership of tech companies, censorship of things that piss them off, not consistently law and order. They're angry populists who, for the moment, lean right on social issues. A lot of them easily could be Bernie Bros and lean left without really missing a beat on the economic issues.

You wanted more inflation, more expensive food, exploding electricity costs, tax breaks for the rich, and more taxes on middle class Americans? Weird. Are they the same ones who want state ownership of companies like Intel? You should know. I disagree with the former. Tariffs are taxes. The whole thing is friggin stupid. Inflation is rising, electricity is rising, food is more expensive. Not to mention the continuation of tax breaks for the rich. MAGA talks the talk, but caves to the country club set to get things done on the fiscal side in the end. The latter comment I agree with completely.

Yeah, sure. From whom is the question.

This is bannable if it’s garbage.

Stay in your lane on KO coverage.

It is, but it’s no coincidence that we traded ahead of Carolina for Dawkins. I have no doubt Beane had a lot of say as to who to target in that cycle.

I think they’re OK. McGovern, Hollins, two excellent and one good safety, Daquan … There for sure have been misses - Samuel, Howard, Larry, Mike Edwards. So maybe OK is the fairest “word.”

You have a sick mind.

Shenault is totally unimpressive.

Who's gonna play 1T on first and second downs if Jones goes? Not Walker. Not Big Phil, that's for sure. Dewayne Carter? No way. Someone not on the roster? Maybe. I guess. But I see this move more about cleaning out Larry (cap savings for a guy who had a mediocre camp) and Dewayne (JAG) and having Big Phil around as the 5th DT who will not dress on game days absent injury or poor play by others.

Unless they want the vet there for the whole season. I read somewhere that dumping Larry now saves $1m on the cap, and that the savings won’t be realized if he’s cut upon return from suspension. As far as I know they’re gonna play him at 3 anyway, so they may just want to give Phillips the savings and move on. Maybe Carter but not Jones.

So adios Larry O?

Shaq Thompson

We already have Benford.

White is cheaper than Pickett.

Sounds like Samuel has mono. Maybe he's headed to IR. Shenault especially. Stay in your friggin lane on KO coverage. He's gotta go. The only way I think he sticks around is if they play some roster games with returner and he's a PS elevation for the purpose of returner by band aid for the first couple of weeks.

I agree completely. I initially entertained the idea of trying to trade Moore first, but he's a better roster fit the Samuel. At this point, it's hard to conceive of cutting Shavers, who has an exceptional work ethic, roster versatility, and threshold competence, for a guy (Samuel) with marginal production who can't stay on the field.

1. He deserved the opportunity to make tape. 2. They're thinking of trying to trade Mike White (hello, Lions and Raiders) and they wanted to see if he can handle #3.

Exactly.

Sure, fine, but negotiations were ongoing.

Who's leeching? It's broadcast over the air and on premium channels for which I pay. That's leeching? Give me a break. (And I happened to purchase no fewer than four PSLs at the new stadium, so while we're on the subject of leeching maybe you can show some cards in that respect.)

That's really what we're talking about here. Taste, or poor taste, depending on one's perspective. That's it. Have the yacht, don't have the yacht, whatever. I think it's in poor taste to take $850m in taxpayer subsidy to fund a business and to then turn around and buy a $100m yacht. Others feel differently, and they're entitled to that opinion for many valid reasons. That about sums the whole thing up. All of this is well said. I'm not mad at the guy. I appreciate that he invested the money here and kept the team here. But I'm mindful of the fact that it's an immensely profitable business, and I personally would not have taken gobs of taxpayer money and then bought a yacht. It's not how I work. The question is taste, and look, and it's not for me. And some others. But there are more who don't really care about the optics or who don't see it the same way. Whatevs.