Mudguard

Members
  • Content count

    1,798
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mudguard

  • Rank
    Council Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Santa Clara, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

3,076 profile views
  1. Since their wins are about equal, I'd vote for boiled leather based on the length of time that he's played in the Westeros leagues. I'm also concerned about Manhole's ban. If permanent, I think that should be disqualifying. If it's just a month or so, I'd like to delay the selection so that Manhole gets a chance to make his case.
  2. Thanks. Yeah, as I said in the other thread, each of the leagues I participated in was won by a team with Gurley. He was very good all year, but went absolutely bonkers in weeks 15 and 16 (~40 points per week). If you made it to week 15 with Gurley, it's very likely that you went on to win the championship.
  3. Maybe DeAndre Hopkins for JuJu (more targets) and Shady for Ingram (more carries). ETA: Hopkins is also by far Houston's biggest weapon, and same thing with Shady. JuJu and Ingram have a lot of competition, although Ingram has been very productive even with the emergence of Kamara.
  4. I remember you having a big hole at QB after the draft, but you made an early trade where you gave up Jordan Howard and Kenny Stills for Adrian Peterson, Alvin Kamara, and Alex Smith. At the time, I thought you overpaid, but it turned out great for you. Kamara and Smith both outperformed their projections by a lot (and so did Gurley).
  5. Some of the medical billing practices are unconscionable. I'm in agreement that price controls would be the most effective way of getting health care expenditures under control, but Republicans definitely aren't going to do it, and I don't think Democrats have the stomach for it either. Too many industries and too much money is involved, so I think it's unlikely to get implemented anytime soon. There was some outrage this year about excessive drug pricing, but I'm not sure it led to any actual reform. Just some bad press for several drug companies. Improvements in medical cost transparency (drugs, materials and supplies, labor) might help get us there in time if enough outrage is generated.
  6. Congrats to all the League Champions. I played in Experts, C and Survivor, and the three winners all had Todd Gurley. I'm guessing that a few other Westeros leagues also rode Gurley to a championship.
  7. This budget cut is less than the 400 million cut for the 2016-2017 UN general operating budget.   285 million also is only about 5 percent of the general operating budget. There's no indication that this small cut is retaliatory in any way, and it doesn't look like this touches the separate UN peacekeeping budget, which was 8 billion last year.
  8. That's a fair analysis. Definitely agree with your first point that the ACA increased health care consumption, which was it's primary purpose, so by at least that measure it's been a success.
  9. There's no way you can determine whether the ACA was responsible for slowing down the burden on the consumption of other goods from looking at those two indexes. Also, I thought the cost of healthcare was still increasing at a rate greater than the rate of general inflation. The spikes in the cost of health insurance sure doesn't seem like healthcare is getting cheaper relative to other goods.
  10. Virginia actually has a detailed list of examples and guidelines for how to hand recount a ballot. The vote for Gillispee likely falls under paragraph 6: And the vote for Yancey probably falls under paragraph 8: To count the vote for Yancey, the vote for Simonds would have to be considered "scratched out", which doesn't seem that unreasonable of a position to take.
  11. It's been very clear for a while now that the tax cut was going to be passed, and that only small tweaks were going to be needed to get it to the finish line, so today's news was already priced in. Only a last minute significant change to the proposed tax cut would have caused a major swing, and that didn't happen.
  12. Yeah, Trump taking the high road is unexpected, to say the least. We'll see how long that lasts though. If he sees or hears people blaming him in part for the loss or calling him out for supporting a loser, he's not going to be able to control himself.
  13. Republicans are going to pass a tax bill. Moore's loss can pretty easily be pinned on Moore being a horrendous candidate. There's no indication that this vote was a referendum on Republican tax policy. They may need to tweak things a bit to get everyone on board, but I'm sure that they'll get it done.
  14. That's what the Republicans get for running a terrible candidate. Thanks Bannon! Just enough Republicans either stayed home or switched sides. Not surprised at all at the result. I think a couple of us on the forums called it. This is good news for the Democrats, but I'm not sure how much you can use this race to project what will happen in 2018. Moore was a historically horrendous candidate. If the Republicans ran a generic, non-offensive Republican, I'm certain they would have won.
  15. I'll go with Jones +2. Enough Republicans stay at home, which allows Jones to win in a squeaker. But I won't be surprised if Moore wins. I think it'll be close.