5 minutes ago, pallidrone said:

I can see where I may have wrote that where it came off wrong. I was trying to describe the style he was writing his posts in. I don't know a better way to describe it other then it reminds me of how some people would have made fun of a black person back in the 80s or 90s.

Now do you see the issue ??

4 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

I'm not trying to stir the pot but just curious if he portrayed himself as some hillbilly using stereotypical hillbilly slang would you feel the same?  It seemed that he was playing a "character".  What stereotypes are people "allowed" to imitate?  Seems to me that it's OK to imitate southern people, Irish people, Australian or British based solely on their accents and the way they talk.  

Are the characters that Sacha Baron Cohen racist or does he get a pass?  Have you ever heard of the comedian Russell Peters?  He's an Indian who pretty much makes a living doing stand-up comedy based off of racial stereotypes and impressions.  None of it comes off in a derogatory way IMO. 

I'm not coming at you in an argumentative way, just trying to understand.  Shocker was ridiculous, I agree 100% but I don't feel he was racist.  

Yeah I mean I always took him for what he was, a court jester. I don't think anybody took him seriously, at least I hope not. 

5 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Ironic that you'd ask me to grow a pair and yet 4for4 doesn't have the balls to confront me directly and instead feels the need on the daily to make veiled comments about me and furcsine reason defend him 

Don't you have him on ignore ???????????

7 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

a comp claim is a property claim? what does that mean? 

A comp claim is anything that happens to your vehicle thats not an accident. 

Hitting a deer = comp claim / moving  to miss a dear and hitting a tree = collision claim. Both will affect your rate. I promise

Again, I dont care about your citations or any other junk your spouting. I live it. Billion and Trillion dollar insurance companies have millions and millions(if not billions) of legal teams figuring out how to cut corners and do it correctly so none of this matters. 

Again, if you think Insurance companies are just gonna eat the 6 BILLION in stolen car claims each year and DO NOTHING about it youre sadly mistaken. 

By the way, I'll be headed to Hawaii with my company(an insurance company) in May because my team was the highest in sales selling home and Auto policies in NJ, NY, and PA in 2021. 

I believe you are wrong on all three fronts. Again, a singular comp claim won't raise your rates, at least it shouldn't. 

I don't know of any trillion dollar insurance companies, the highest ones to my knowledge are in the hundred billion range, but not trillion. 

Do you have any stats to support this number of stolen car claim costs? 

Say Rodgers and Adams do go to Denver.  You would have to think someone like Hamler or Patrick would be available via trade.  Who would you target out of the two and what would you give up?

48 minutes ago, greend said:

Yes, I mean are you arguing that a father would be a good father that got himself addicted to crack? And since we know that crack is very addictive why the hell would we condone a small amount for "personal use".

I'm not sure how I've been able to live these almost 60 years without somehow trying crack, oh I know why because I'm not stupid. 

Yet you will drink and smoke cigars, which can be very addictive and even fatal to some.  Personal vulnerability to addiction varies on a lot aspects, biological and social.  The crack addict may be an excellent father otherwise and the teetotaler could be an awful father.  The crack addict has a disease.  Making crack possession illegal doesn’t cure that disease.  Where did I say I condoned it?  What I have said is that treatment and addressing social needs is more effective, fiscally and societally, than jailing the father.  Further, the stigma of a criminal record further causes a downward spiral because of work availability, which makes the situation worse.  As I pointed out, Portugal discovered that addiction didn’t increase, and ultimately decreased by their model.  Ours hasn’t decreased addiction or overdose deaths, to be sure.  So you see a "bad father” and a criminal. I see an ill man and a family in need of help, not the burden of a criminal proceeding. 

Just now, Bacarty2 said:

so what your saying is the threat wasnt strong enough so you did the things that landed you in jail. 

What I'm saying is, we need stricter and harsher penalties   because it's not stopping people from doing bad things. 

I'm saying stricter laws punishments wouldn't have kept me from the choices I made.

If that were the case what's the limit or the baseline, where is the line that says this much punishment decreases crime this amount does not.

Instead why don't we focus on factors that we have observed decrease crime, like decreasing poverty and Inequality, increasing education, healthcare, affordable housing, livable wages, access to healthy food and water ect...

Chopping a dudes hand off after he steals some food is easy,why not ask why did that person feel the need to steal food in the first place, was he a bad person or just hungry?

And then Instead of chopping his hand off which doesn't accomplish anything why not figure out how to make sure he's not hungry then he won't feel the need to steal.

That could be accomplished in a number of ways one of which would be to just give him some bread.

Which then gets Into the whole  lazy free hand out charity vs pull your self up by your boot straps gotta earn your daily bread people are only worth what they produce drawn out ageless debate...

7 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

I'm not trying to stir the pot but just curious if he portrayed himself as some hillbilly using stereotypical hillbilly slang would you feel the same?  It seemed that he was playing a "character".  What stereotypes are people "allowed" to imitate?  Seems to me that it's OK to imitate southern people, Irish people, Australian or British based solely on their accents and the way they talk.  

Are the characters that Sacha Baron Cohen racist or does he get a pass?  Have you ever heard of the comedian Russell Peters?  He's an Indian who pretty much makes a living doing stand-up comedy based off of racial stereotypes and impressions.  None of it comes off in a derogatory way IMO. 

I'm not coming at you in an argumentative way, just trying to understand.  Shocker was ridiculous, I agree 100% but I don't feel he was racist.  

My dividing line is simple -- it goes to the intent. I'm Indian, but look at my avatar. I have never viewed Apu as racist because he was portrayed as a small business owner, family man and immigrant with an accent.

I took Shocker's posts as offensive because he was highlighting a lack of intelligence and command of the English language and associating it with African Americans. Plus...it wasn't funny. 

35 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Jason actually says at the beginning " he is not sure how the NFL treats that "

Everything I have read from multiple sites show that a salary converted to a signing bonus can not be optional.  Think about it, if you could do that, it would be such a transparent work around to cheat the cap.  

For example, Saints in cap hell, they have Cam Jordan with base salaries of 13.6 and 13.9 million the next two years.  So just restructure, converting all but 1 million to an " option bonus " and then cut him before the bonus kicks in.

Please tell me you see how ludicrous that sounds.

It’s not a signing bonus. It’s an option bonus. He hasn’t been paid the money yet and it becomes guaranteed in the summer. He was very matter of fact about the option bonus not being guaranteed in the video. You just don’t want to admit you’re wrong. Whatever.

Option Bonuses are real things in the NFL. Just because you think its ludicrous doesn’t make it not a thing.
 

Here you go:

https://frontofficenfl.com/2017/03/10/nfl-contracts-explained-option-bonus/amp/
 

It was in Peyton Manning’s contract. It’s also in Myles Garret’s contract. 

1 minute ago, garingovt2000 said:

Say Rodgers and Adams do go to Denver.  You would have to think someone like Hamler or Patrick would be available via trade.  Who would you target out of the two and what would you give up?

It has been reported in a Rodgers trade Jeudy would be going to the Packers.  So they would have Adams, Sutton, Patrick and Hamler.

Looks like I picked a helluva day to avoid TATE and actually make some money. ....  

PFF on crack today

If Gannon comes back I'm assuming it's a sound bet we continue to run more Zone coverage.  So the question is which of these top 5-10 corners would be best put in Zone?  Time is yours

Weird. Not a franchise QB though. 

4 minutes ago, MillerTime said:

Option Bonuses are real things in the NFL. Just because you think its ludicrous doesn’t make it not a thing.

Yes, you can put an option bonus in a new contract, but this is a restructure.

A couple things, Jason straight up says " I am not sure how the NFL treats this "

Then if you go to the 5:30 ish mark of the video, he says it is not guaranteed until the summer, and then seconds later says it is guaranteed the 3rd day of the league year.

Fact is, we will not be sure how this works until it happens.  But at the end of the video, he says this was done with the intention of a post June 1 release in 2023.  He even has it written on his site that way.

Cox restructured his contract on September 10, 2021. As part of the restructure Cox converted $14.8 million of salary into a signing bonus creating $10.96 million in 2021 cap space. The team also converted $15.9 million of Cox' 2022 salary into a bonus creating $8.8 million in salary cap space. There are four dummy years at the end of the contract which will allow the Eagles to potentially use a post June-1 designation on Cox in either 2022 or more likely 2023 for salary cap purposes and defer the cap charges until 2024.

6 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Don't you have him on ignore ???????????

Yup and yet his veiled indirect comments about me still show up from time to time when others quote them.

And like I said it's pretty obvious he's said something about me when he leaves an laugh emoji on my post then immediately below my post is a thing that says, you've chosen to ignore 4for4, gee I wonder what that's about and sure enough if I choose to view that post it's him talking smack about me to other posters.

So I'll make this simple since you and he have decided to make it more complicated than it needs to be 

I'll take him off ignore then when 4for4 is compelled to talk about me to other posters like a jr high jaded girl and you're compelled to defend his honor both of you can do so directly to me and I'll have the opportunity to handle it myself.

 

59 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

I stopped reading after I saw "death penalty doesn't slow down criminals" 

No ish, it doesnt happens. It's extremely rare and when it does it takes centuries to get it done. 

If you get convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder, it's the death penally a week from the conviction. <--- bet thousands and thousands of death penalties a year would be a point in the right direction  

I never used to believe in the death penalty but changed my mind.

Where I live this 22 year old girl followed a 93 year old woman into her apartment then tortured and suffocated her for no reason and then hung out in her apartment for a couple days inviting friends over while this dead lady's body is sitting in there.

Someone like that should be extinguished from the Earth immediately.  No point in keeping people like that alive.

3 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Weird. Not a franchise QB though. 

Only one game short of that 248 start threshold to know if he is really a franchise QB or not.

56 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Lol well I'd say the death penalty is pretty effective at slowing down criminals hard to crime when one is dead😄

I think what it means is that the death penalty hasn't shown to deter others from committing crimes, even those that may carry the death penalty.

At least that's what this particular study shows 

I'd be happy to read any other study that says otherwise 

I wasn't sure whether stricter punishment deterred crime so I looked it up, found a few articles that supported what I thought I might think but again would be happy to read anything else that is in opposition of that view.

I took a college course on Crime and Punishment back in the seventies. Back then we knew that jail or the death penalty really failed as a deterrent and that rehabilitation was practically nonexistent in US prisons.  Almost fifty years later, we are still practicing the same failed approaches.  

1 hour ago, justrelax said:

Many of them define "good" people. Slaves, blacks, Indians, Japanese. The American prison population exploded as a consequence of the Volstead Act. I'll wager that well over half the blog would be subject to imprisonment under that law. Don't know about you in particular.

And again this has nothing to do with the laws that put Ute's "good guys" in prison today.

10 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Yes, you can put an option bonus in a new contract, but this is a restructure.

A couple things, Jason straight up says " I am not sure how the NFL treats this "

Then if you go to the 5:30 ish mark of the video, he says it is not guaranteed until the summer, and then seconds later says it is guaranteed the 3rd day of the league year.

Fact is, we will not be sure how this works until it happens.  But at the end of the video, he says this was done with the intention of a post June 1 release in 2023.  He even has it written on his site that way.

 

 

Why couldn’t you put an option bonus in a restructure? Where do you see you can’t do that? It’s converted salary. 

He says the option bonus is guaranteed in the summer. He is talking about the 3rd day of the league year in 2023 being when they can’t june 1st cut him and its all guaranteed towards the cap in 2023.

I know that about the June 1st in 2023. He also said in the video that it gives the flexibility to cut him or trade him in 2022 and they had options. Ultimately if you sign a player you want him to play through the contract. He isn’t performing for his pay now though. So they will use that flexibility and move on vs pay him the option bonus. That again wasn’t our argument. 

37 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Amazing improvement. Pro Bowl worthy. 

Wouldn’t surprise if this happened.  

1 hour ago, D-Shiznit said:

Leftwich sounds like a smart man.

17 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Yet you will drink and smoke cigars, which can be very addictive and even fatal to some.  Personal vulnerability to addiction varies on a lot aspects, biological and social.  The crack addict may be an excellent father otherwise and the teetotaler could be an awful father.  The crack addict has a disease.  Making crack possession illegal doesn’t cure that disease.  Where did I say I condoned it?  What I have said is that treatment and addressing social needs is more effective, fiscally and societally, than jailing the father.  Further, the stigma of a criminal record further causes a downward spiral because of work availability, which makes the situation worse.  As I pointed out, Portugal discovered that addiction didn’t increase, and ultimately decreased by their model.  Ours hasn’t decreased addiction or overdose deaths, to be sure.  So you see a "bad father” and a criminal. I see an ill man and a family in need of help, not the burden of a criminal proceeding. 

Comparing smoking cigars to crack, good one!  C'mon man!  The crack addict is addicted to crack because he broke the law and smoked it. He didn't come down with some disease that forced him to run out and smoke crack. 

You guys can have your weed, I completely agree with that, but don't try to sell me on the virtues of making hard drugs legal, frankly I find the whole thought of it utterly ridiculous.

Just now, BigEFly said:

I took a college course on Crime and Punishment back in the seventies. Back then we knew that jail or the death penalty really failed as a deterrent and that rehabilitation was practically nonexistent in US prisons.  Almost fifty years later, we are still practicing the same failed approaches.  

Yup I can state that from my experience the only rehabilitation that anyone is getting in  jail or prison is what they choose to do themselves and even then that's limited behind walls.

Its really difficult for inmates to get into programs while in jail, they have to meet certain strict criteria and their are limited spots and limited resources.

And once they are released though they may have access to a wider range if available resources doesn't mean they have the means to access them.

Rehab, therapy ect is expensive and who has time for it when I es energy is focused in having basic needs of survival, which again is more difficult to attain when one has a record.

I was lucky I had family and a lot of people willing to help, I got an ok job a couple weeks out because some how my interviewer skipped the last page of my application that covered criminal background and also didn't notice I was wearing an ankle monitor.

I was able to live with my parents rent free and used the little money I did make to pay for my therapy and fines and get off probation early.

Most dont have those resources and luck right out of jail, most get the 10 bucks they give you upon release go directly to the gas station across the street buy some cigarettes and go directly back to the environment that led them to jail in the first place and end up back in the clink in a few weeks 

I got lucky I had a  lot of support and love resources available to me that I could take advantage of and did, and my experience is the exception not the rule.