How long is Doug still getting paid by is? Doubt he is desperate

I just heard my new favorite WIP call. 

"Trade for Watson and since he has a similar playing style to Hurts, have Hurts be the backup and develop and learn from him so when Watson is older and close to retiring, Hurts can take over the franchise".

2 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Point noted.  I am not selling the virtue of making hard drugs legal (OxyContin already is), but on treating addiction over jailing folks for personal possession. That’s where we seem to differ.  

I had a minor surgery recently (hemorrhoid)and was prescribed oxy for pain management.

A big thing after that surgery is getting plenty of fiber and liquids to keep things down their moving smoothly as to limit pain and to not tear any stitches or anything like that 

Well of course one side effect of most opioids and oxycontin is constipation.

Yet the Dr who was so worried about my fiber intake knowingly or maybe unknowingly prescribed me something that was counteractive to my healing, maybe we should have penalties for Drs peddling drugs 🤷‍♂️

Speaking of not making sense to me, WTF are the Bears doing hiring Matt Eberflus? I guess he sold them on his plan for Fields, but eeeehhhh

1 minute ago, Utebird said:

I had a minor surgery recently (hemorrhoid)and was prescribed oxy for pain management.

A big thing after that surgery is getting plenty of fiber and liquids to keep things down their moving smoothly as to limit pain and to not tear any stitches or anything like that 

Well of course one side effect of most opioids and oxycontin is constipation.

Yet the Dr who was so worried about my fiber intake knowingly or maybe unknowingly prescribed me something that was counteractive to my healing, maybe we should have penalties for Drs peddling drugs 🤷‍♂️

TMI

3 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

How long is Doug still getting paid by is? Doubt he is desperate

2022 would have been his last season. Not sure if its fully guaranteed or not.

Just now, Saltpeter said:

Speaking of not making sense to me, WTF are the Bears doing hiring Matt Eberflus? I guess he sold them on his plan for Fields, buy eeeehhhh

LOL I read WTF as WFT first... as in WHat in the Washington Football Team are the Bears....

 

and it works either way  

1 hour ago, downundermike said:

I would say,  it wasn't racism at all.

That's a subjective thing these days as some people began to call just about anything racist.  And others stick to a more true definition of the word. 

He should have been left alone.  You just had a big post on how to use the ignore feature but you and others obsessed over getting him banned. 

Kinda ridiculous. 

But,  whats done is done. 

4 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

How long is Doug still getting paid by is? Doubt he is desperate

I mean he should never be "desperate" again. (unless of course he's a crack addict)

1 hour ago, downundermike said:

Reading this post again, this is now really bothering me.

So all African Americans speak in 80's slang ??  

That's what racist people would need to believe in other to mistakenly believe shocker was being racist.

1 hour ago, Sack that QB said:

Dan Quinn was the hot candidate, looks like he won't get a job after all.

Would be funny if Gannon got one and not him.

Eberflus got it... same make and model, different year.

1 minute ago, HazletonEagle said:

I would say,  it wasn't racism at all.

That's a subjective thing these days as some people began to call just about anything racist.  And others stick to a more true definition of the word. 

He should have been left alone.  You just had a big post on how to use the ignore feature but you and others obsessed over getting him banned. 

Kinda ridiculous. 

But,  whats done is done. 

We found the clone Daddy

1 minute ago, Ipiggles said:

So he is an etremely stupid idiot, who likes to argue/fight - when he is on probation - instead of walking away- leaving?  I mean cmon- I'm 57 years old, and the last time I got into a shoving match I was in my 30's, and ont on probation. It's not hard to avoid, or de-esculate.. SMH.

Bigger question- what do people who are against punishing crimes think we should do to reduce the amount of crimes being comitted? I mean if you are not for punishing those who commit the crimes, what do you suggest? Keeping in mind life is not some utopian fantasy where everyone is reasonable and rationale and gets along if we just let them. Too many progressives have this idealistic view, example, if we make having guns illegal, there wont be any gun deaths or crimes. And it's about as far from reality as you can get. SO I am very curious, if you dont like punsihment, what do you suggest?

Depends on the crime. Non-violent property crimes should be treated no more harshly than white collar crimes, if you're going to crack down hard on petty theft, you should crack down hard on tax evasion, corporate fraud, etc. Why should a loser who steals hundreds get a worse sentence than a well connected guy who steals millions or lies about the danger of his product.

Now the small minority of habitual violent criminals (we not talking the drunk in a bar fight, unless he does it on a regular basis), the murderers, rapists, etc. are a different animal. No matter what the reason for their behavior, they're too dangerous to allow out, at least until their 40s or 50s, when there's a sharp drop in recidivism.

Public policy shouldn't be made on the basis of emotion, or individual morality (you may think drug use is wrong, but do you drink - then you're a hypocrite) but what is best for society as a whole, balancing individual rights and the public good, and should be based not on prejudice but empirical evidence, and updated as better data and analysis is available.

3 hours ago, Bacarty2 said:

 42K is nothing to a law abiding citizen who may have to pay out of pocket for a new car, who has to live in fear, who may have a claim declined, who may have something sentimental in said car. The insurance increases. Then you have the cause and effect of the stolen car money going to drugs/guns. Retrials, etc etc etc. 

Side note, the 42K is also ridiculous. IF your in jail you should be treated like the POS you are. Limited heat. Limited AC. Limited recourses. . Limited food/drink. Theyre A POS, they shouldnt get any gain for being in jail 

So my point would be that jail doesn't stop cars from being stolen.  As per your early numbers, it actually seems to make people more likely to commit additional crimes.  There's probably a solution that works better and costs less than prison but we are so fixated on the idea of punishment we don't sufficiently consider those options.  Ultimately, more prisons and longer sentences come with bigger government and more taxation. I don't think the cost is tied to the conditions of the prisons.  I have never spent time in a jail but I have been to some.  I also have read enough to know that limited AC would be a change for the better for a lot of inmates.  In NC there are several prisons without any AC.  I think it's about 10.  NC isn't the only southern state with prisons without AC.  You can talk about the bare bones conditions but remember people work in those conditions and have to manage those people too.  

Off topic, the late 90s/early 2000s were incredible for QB underdog stories. Kurt Warner, Tom Brady, Jeff Garcia, Rich Gannon. Don't know how possible that kind of thing is in the digital/analytics age.

45 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I think you’re misinterpreting "decriminalization" (usually for personal use amounts only) vs legalization. 

All decriminalization does, is take street-level offenders that might have small, personal use amounts of a substance, out of the criminal court system and into the civil court system.  These offenders would still be held accountable but in the civil system, not the criminal system.  And in most cases, based on where it's been implemented, it seems to work.

The reason for legalization is three-fold

1) control the quality of drugs, with fentanyl, street drugs are toxic and thousands are dying

2) eliminate the profits going to organized crime, whether SA cocaine rings, the Taliban selling  opium and heroin, Syria selling speed, Chinese selling fentanyl, etc.

3) reduce the crime associated with obtaining and paying for drugs.

I'm for doing what's necessary to reduce harm to individuals and society, I'm not interested in a hypocritical moral position (alcoholics dissing drug addicts, etc.).

4 minutes ago, Saltpeter said:

Off topic, the late 90s/early 2000s were incredible for QB underdog stories. Kurt Warner, Tom Brady, Jeff Garcia, Rich Gannon. Don't know how possible that kind of thing is in the digital/analytics age.

Nobody cares about football,  pal. Sheesh

3 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

So he is an etremely stupid idiot, who likes to argue/fight - when he is on probation - instead of walking away- leaving?  I mean cmon- I'm 57 years old, and the last time I got into a shoving match I was in my 30's, and not on probation. It's not hard to avoid, or de-esculate.. SMH. 

 

Bigger question- what do people who are against punishing crimes think we should do to reduce the amount of crimes being comitted? I mean if you are not for punishing those who commit the crimes, what do you suggest? Keeping in mind life is not some utopian fantasy where everyone is reasonable and rationale and gets along if we just let them. Too many progressives have this idealistic view, example, if we make having guns illegal, there wont be any gun deaths or crimes. And it's about as far from reality as you can get. SO I am very curious, if you dont like punsihment, what do you suggest? 

 

Didn't say I don't like punishment I just don't think it's very effective and I definitely don't thing more punishment would be more effective.

I think I. uSA we operate the criminal justice system the same way we do our health care, we treat the symptoms instead of the underlying cause of those symptoms.

The question then would be what are the underlying causes of crime?

Different theory and data and studies suggest different things, one of those theories is that crime decreases when basic human needs are met, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, food water shelter love ect...

The bonobo chimpanzee hypothesis suggest that competition for limited basic resources lead to violence tendencies.

Multiple studies show that lower income areas with higher density populations have higher crime rates and hypothesize it's due to lack of equitable resources and competition for them. I sited one of those studies In a previous post and sited another about the bonobo and chimp hypothesis In another.

If you would like me to repost those to you I can.

Either way leading social theory suggests that a more equitable society would decrease violence and crime.

I think locking people up chopping hands off is the easy thing to do, we pay for it as tax payers where as making society more equitable would require those who benefit from scarcity to actually do something that might cut into their bottom line.

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, Saltpeter said:

Speaking of not making sense to me, WTF are the Bears doing hiring Matt Eberflus? I guess he sold them on his plan for Fields, but eeeehhhh

Maybe the Bears understand Fields isn't going to win games by throwing the football any more than Hurts is -- and they'll have to operate a run-first offense in combination with a top-10 defense.  Eberflus is a good choice with keeping a strong defense in mind.  I'll wait and see who they bring in as OC and QB coach before I pass judgment  

Alcohol was illegal once.  It can be addictive, destructive, and deadly…and fun.

If it can be illegal at one point…and legal now…we are just drawing lines.  You can debate cigarettes, marijuana, cocaine, heroine, LSD, meth, whatever.

There’s no inherently right or wrong place to draw the line of legality.  If you don’t want to ban all of it or allow all of it, you are all just debating where to move the needle. 
 

But if you want to legally play with fire, just don’t use my hose to put it out.

13 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Depends on the crime. Non-violent property crimes should be treated no more harshly than white collar crimes, if you're going to crack down hard on petty theft, you should crack down hard on tax evasion, corporate fraud, etc. Why should a loser who steals hundreds get a worse sentence than a well connected guy who steals millions or lies about the danger of his product.

Now the small minority of habitual violent criminals (we not talking the drunk in a bar fight, unless he does it on a regular basis), the murderers, rapists, etc. are a different animal. No matter what the reason for their behavior, they're too dangerous to allow out, at least until their 40s or 50s, when there's a sharp drop in recidivism.

Public policy shouldn't be made on the basis of emotion, or individual morality (you may think drug use is wrong, but do you drink - then you're a hypocrite) but what is best for society as a whole, balancing individual rights and the public good, and should be based not on prejudice but empirical evidence, and updated as better data and analysis is available.

No problem with any of this. However, our police reform policies often have been missing the bolded category and allowing them to continually and habitually commit crimes, and often they escalate in nature. (See recent Christmas Day Parade "CRASH" as the progessives have called it as example of some one who should not have been out in society) 

I'm for the legalization of murder.

 

1.) We can rid society of people that cause a drain of resources 

2.) We can live more peaceably without people that have different opinions than the rest of us

3.) We can cause less accidental deaths by planning them ahead (causing less pain on the "victim")

 

I'm not for making laws because of some moral thing I'm all about society, blah,blah, blah.

 

Before I get reported this is sarcasm folks.

6 minutes ago, greend said:

I'm for the legalization of murder.

 

1.) We can rid society of people that cause a drain of resources 

2.) We can live more peaceably without people that have different opinions than the rest of us

3.) We can cause less accidental deaths by planning them ahead (causing less pain on the "victim)

 

I'm not for making laws because of some moral thing I'm all about society, blah,blah, blah.

 

Before I get reported this is sarcasm folks.

The Purge.

6 minutes ago, greend said:

I'm for the legalization of murder.

 

1.) We can rid society of people that cause a drain of resources 

2.) We can live more peaceably without people that have different opinions than the rest of us

3.) We can cause less accidental deaths by planning them ahead (causing less pain on the "victim")

 

I'm not for making laws because of some moral thing I'm all about society, blah,blah, blah.

 

Before I get reported this is sarcasm folks.

Freaky.