The Big Cat
-
Posts
17,855 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by The Big Cat
-
-
7 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
He is losing his livelihood at a time he didn't plan to. For anyone, regardless of compensation levels, that's a step towards financial ruin.
And even if you are happy to see him go, which is fair, are you so eager to see him gone that you don't mind seeing him hustled out the door on nebulous charges of "workplace misconduct"? I'm not.
Bro...in theory... when the nice lady at the grocery register rang me up twice for string cheese, that could also count as a step towards financial ruin.
-
24 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
While I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion here, both because of Brandon's (some would say deserved) unpopularity amongst the fan base, and because of a rush by SJWs and those afraid to confront them, to assume the guilt of any man accused of misbehavior; before I celebrate steps towards the financial ruin of another human being, I'd like to hear/see the evidence, know how the investigation was conducted, and hear Brandon's side.
Until then I stand opposed, on principle.
You're delusional if you think any of that will be publicly granted.
-
Just now, Kelly the Dog said:
All of their allegedly good moves are getting rid of players and not acquiring them. They have yet to acquire a good player.
Objectively false: Dion Dawkins.
-
21 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:
Explain to me why we should believe that Beane and McDermott know a lot about offense? They got rid of Watkins. Who was on the last year of his deal, was unlikely to resign but turned into a second rounder anyways. Objectively, that's a win. They traded for Matthews. Are we meant to just infer here that this was an inherent negative? I fail to see why this was the wrong the thing to do. And also, Matthews was only part of the trade haul, omitting that is a disingenuous route to make your non-assertion. They signed Kaelin Clay and then cut him and then signed him again. So what? Teams do this with marginal players all the time.They signed Tolbert and then played him too much. Granted. They got rid of Corey Glenn. Glenn played his last snap in October, was on and off the injury report constantly for the last two years, and was 100% expendable because they hit on Dawkins in the draft.They signed DuCasse and then played him too much. Weak. They hired a lousy OC and then fired him after one year. He was the best of a bunch of bad options, not great, but not like they had pick of the litter. They STARTED NATHAN FREAKIN PETERMAN who immediately had the worst half of football in history and then benched him after that half. They benched Tyrod. Don't get it twisted. They didn't re-sign Woods or Goodwin who both immediately played well. You're out of your mind if you think Woods was going to get the money he got in LA to stay in Buffalo. Also please point to your years of Goodwin love while he was a Bill. Links preferred. He was here for four seasons, I'm sure you can find plenty.
About the the only thing they did on offense that was decent was trade for an injury prone Kelvin Benjamin who immediately got injured.
Just askin' for a friend.
Seems like your'e the one that has some explaining to do.
-
I get the sense you're not really looking for an explanation.
-
2
-
-
Has this board turned over so much that nobody has yet mentioned Gibran Hamdan and his chroise?
-
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:
You haven't picked apart anything of mine. You've deflected and ran from your own faulty logic.
If you knew anything about my position, you'd understand this.
And this isn't switching the topic. The topic of the thread is TRUMP AND RUSSIA. My question is directly related to it.
Yet you are scared to answer it. Why is that?
You're either helplessly dumb or helplessly stubborn. Either way, thanks for the brief distraction, not wasting any more of my time watching you tinfoil wing nuts jerk off to your insane conspiracy theories. Go Bills.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Or why they held protests against him.
Do you believe Trump and Russia actively colluded to fix the election?
If you thought I was going to take your bait to switch the topic away from someone picking apart your nonsense, you should have taken the hint five attempts ago.
That's all for 2018.
Good to see you clowns haven't moved an inch.
-
1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:
And Sanders.
Why won't you answer a very simple question posed to you?
Great so you understand now that you were unquestionably wrong to say the Russians didn't support Trump.
-
Oh hey! Look who finally decided to get on board!
Can't wait to see how you guys twist to acknowledge it was happening all along:
-
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:
And you're ignoring the rest of the 36 pages which provide context for that cherry picked section.
But please, yes, let's get into the weeds with primary source material and see which one of us has read more...
Before we get there, why don't you answer the question you've now been dodging for over an hour...
Do you, Big Cat, believe that Trump and Russia colluded to fix the election? I'm asking your opinion, not for you to prove it one way or the other.
So you acknowledge that words "we support them" in reference to Trump, but that's no indication that they supported one candidate over another. Interesting.
-
Just now, GG said:
Gee, look who's back for his annual beating.
Remind me again how happy you were to share a bus with people of color in November 2008?
I see. Get called out for making stuff up. Insult the person.
-
1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Critical thinking is not your strong suit, is it.
The indictment made clear the goal was chaos, not one candidate over the other.
You never answered the question: do you believe Russia colluded with Trump or his team to fix the election?
That's fundamentally incorrect. You're plainly ignoring direct language from the indictment that is impossible to misinterpret Page 17 Section a:
-
2
-
-
Just now, Nanker said:
So, you're saying the Rooskies would have "backed" Mitt, or Jeb, or Marco, or Ted?
Just ABC... right?
No. Nobody's saying that.
-
1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:
And in the process these untalented, stupid, naive political hacks beat not one but two American political dynasties in an election where the MSM, FBI, DOJ and former administration were actively trying to prevent such a victory.
... Yeah, that tracks.
This is a conversation about the two years invested by the Kremlin to unseat that political dynasty. Did you already forget that?
-
7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:
"Why did they get caught?" is the better question.
Because they're stupid, untalented and naive political hacks that existed on the fringe of American politics before the only presidential candidate that would stoop so low as to have them came along.
-
1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:
It's a relevant question to the issue at hand. The fact you won't answer it is interesting. Why won't you answer it? Is the cognitive dissonance butting against your brain making you stammer?
Let's try another... because I'm trying to gauge you're positions since you're new down here.
Do you believe Trump and Russia colluded to fix the election?
I gave you two reasons why not to answer. How many do you need?
Oh wait, I'm being lectured about cognitive dissonance by the "deep state" guy. Okay, carry on.
May be you can help explain why so many of Trump's guys have been caught lying...repeatedly.
Why did they lie?
-
1 minute ago, GG said:
Not quite. You cannot make a straight correlation based on what FB disclosed, because they didn't specify whether the pre-election ads were seen equally as the post-election ads. Again, based on the total meltdown on Nov. 7, I can make an argument that the post-election ads were much more impactful and they still feed the TDS beast.
Oh I see. You misspoke. It was an accident when you implied that all of the FB purchasing activity, according to the VP, came after the election. How far are you going to back track this one?
-
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:
You didn't answer the question.
Because it was a stupid !@#$ing question that followed no relevant logic to your argument or to any argument any one else in their right mind would make.
It was a stupid !@#$ing question that has no measurable answer, and that's why you asked it in the first place, hoping I was some kind of a moron.-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, GG said:
And how many of those 4.4 million impressions were in support of Bernie?
Okay so we acknowledge you made a false statement in order stifle the opposing argument. That's good enough for me.
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:Which do you believe had a bigger impact on the electorate:
A few million dollars spent on obscure FB ads which hardly anyone saw?
Or
The hundreds of millions of dollars poured into the election by both parties?
You mean the obscure ads that 4.4 million people saw?
At least you acknowledge that those 4.4 million impressions had a tangible impact, regardless of how it compares. That's good enough for me.
-
2
-
-
22 minutes ago, GG said:
Why is that funny to you? Did you not see FB's VP of Ciommunications confirm that the ads were bought AFTER the election? I can even offer up anecdotal evidence that the level of angst on FB went into the stratosphere AFTER the election.
FALSE.
56% were purchased after the election, meaning there were roughly 4.4 million impressions before the election.
https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/10/hard-questions-russian-ads-delivered-to-congress/
-
My favorite responses are those saying he’s good because the Bills have had bad QBs in the past. ??♂️
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Bangarang said:
It’s his 7th year in the league. This is who he is. We probably saw him at his ceiling his first year as a starter.
Which was before the league figured him out. Been brutal since.
-
10 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:
I don’t think that anyone believes Peterman should have started. It was a mistake. At the same time there’s no reason to rehash it on the verge of a huge couple of weeks. Let’s move forward and focus on what needs to happen to get into the playoffs.
Actually 81 of 150 respondents believe Petetman should have started.
-
1
-
What's your favorite nut?
in Off the Wall
Posted
the ones that have been posting to this sub forum for damn near 20 years