Jump to content

Tywin et al.

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • I got all this stuff twirling around in my head
  • Gender
  • Location
    Purifying in the Waters of Lake Minnetonka

Recent Profile Visitors

14,395 profile views

Tywin et al.'s Achievements

Council Member

Council Member (8/8)

  1. Agents’ cut is pretty small these days. Lamar is only saving himself like 4-5% by not having one. Agents are half the problem here too. They want the biggest deal ever just as much so they can tell other players they’ll get them paid the most too. The real issue here based on the reporting is that the Ravens offered Lamar $133m guaranteed over five years which is a joke.
  2. @DMC, stay safe buddy. I keep hearing different reports about exactly how bad Tampa will be hit, but the reoccurring point that's troubling is that Tampa, unlike a lot of other places in Florida, isn't built to withstand a storm like this and that a lot of the buildings and infrastructure in the city are outdated.
  3. If they wait it might cost them $60m per season. That's what makes no sense. They have to sign him and lock him up for years to come, so why not do so at today's price? Lamar is a good deal better than Murray, Wilson, Watson, and yes, Burrow too and the latter is going to be up for a deal after this year, along with Herbert as well, and if you franchise Lamar while they get deals...it's just going to keep costing more.
  4. The first Deadpool movie is a lot of fun.
  5. I think they should give it to him, or be willing to compromise closer to something he wants. If it's $250m over five years mostly or fully guaranteed, do it. I'd go to $300m if I could reduce the guaranteed money, but either way pay him otherwise he'll demand a trade and someone will do it and give it to him. He's a good deal better than Watson, younger and doesn't have two torn ACLs already on his bio, plus there are zero concerns about him off the field. There are very few players at any position I'd break the bank for. Lamar is one of him, especially if you're paying that kind of money for his prime 20's and not the back end of his 30's like the Broncos did with Mr. Limited. Injuries are always going to be a higher risk with him, but he's one of the five best QBs in football and someone worth going all in for the next few years. Doing anything else only hurts the Ravens situation and his asking price will likely just go up the longer they wait. Pay that man!
  6. The cast is nuts, and it's when so many of them were either just making their star turn or about to do so. The payroll five years later would have been a fortune.
  7. This feels like you're getting cute. No, it did not hit 60% before the war, but prior to the actual invasion Gallup found a 59-35 split for the war on the extreme ends. Anyways, the point I was trying to make, and not just in the one post that you quoted, is that some early markers for high support of the invasion and war skew a lot of people's perception of how much the public supported the war when looking at it in its totality, even in just the first few years, and that it's often used to frame the overall public in the US in a negative light, so again on the first part we're actually in agreement, I'm just making a different argument than you after that point.
  8. Why keep him around though if he is a cancer and you're not going to play him? Just seems like that would only problems worse, and that's in a season in which you need to decide if your young QB is it or not (spoiler, he's trash). Unrelated, but I'm going to keep hammering this point. You paid what for this?!?!?!?:
  9. Same reasons as always. Some supported it, some were afraid to vote against it, some saw how they could benefit/profit from it, all of the above or for some other random reason. Yeah, thought that was clear from my first post. Support for the war went up during the build up and initial invasion, but declined afterwards and earlier than some remember. Hasn't stopped people from painting the entire body politic as basically being the worst parts of the Republican party. Not sure what you think is inaccurate based on my post and a few others relating to the subject. Yes there was a roughly 30/30/40 split leading up to the war, and based on a strong majority of polls I just looked at most of the latter moved to the pro war side (along with some of the 30% against the war). Depending on how the question was asked, support for the war ranged from the low to mid 60s to the mid 70s (one Gallup poll had a 90% positive response about how the war was going in March of 2003). This happened because of exactly what you and I said, the media was clearly on one side and people rallied to the cause. And then support collapsed, first at a trickle then at a flood.
  10. And the quote marks are what's key. Yes there is a free press here, but at the time it was overwhelmingly pro-war and that's what most Americans saw. Again, the average American has a pathetic depth of knowledge on most subjects and they generally aren't going to do a ton of additional learning. The tube told them we needed to go to war and so they agreed. Not everyone was for the war, but I really don't recall many people who were anti-war speaking up super loudly until support for the war started to decline. Even if it was obvious to you and I back then, that was generally not the case. Shit, 77 senators voted to go to war and they had a much better understanding of the flimsy justifications for doing so.
  11. Expecting Americans to know a lot more about their government's actions 20 years ago than citizens of other nations should know right now about theirs is an obvious double standard.
  12. Multiple posters have said flatly the average American should have know a lot more than they actually did 20 years ago ignoring that we can look at recent events where people are still equally uninformed despite having even greater ease of access to information. Obviously not the same subject, but just take Brexit for example. People in the UK had all the information in the world just a few key strokes away to inform them that it was a terrible idea based on a bunch of lies, but a majority still went along with it and have only further entrenched the party that lied to them. Point is the average citizen in every country is likely uninformed about most of the actions their governments are taking even when it should be obvious.
  13. This is the frustrating part about reading this thread and in a prior post you acknowledged the hypocrisy. How is the average person in the U.S. expected to know everything about their country's foreign policy when the same average adult cannot even identify the three branches of our federal government, pathetic as it is? But it's also okay for people in other countries to inaccurately compare Russia's actions to the U.S. invading Iraq? The double standards are pretty glaring.
  14. Only time I felt like I nearly rolled the car I was driving was when I was doing over 150 in my Acura TL. Anyways, game, Cruzboys.
  15. The Giants quick play right there had Barkley at TE just kind of standing around. WTF is that?
  • Create New...