Jump to content

BradInATX

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    8514
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Posts posted by BradInATX

  1. On 3/25/2018 at 12:05 PM, BigDHornfan said:

     

    Betting schedule:

    5/9 - 5-15-35 (full collect) - 85-100-150 - 350 (full) - 500 and so on.

    6/8 - 6-12-30 (full collect) - 60 (full) - 120 - 300 (full) - 600 and so on.

     

     

    Going to Vegas next weekend and want to try this out. I'm confused about the above schedule. Take the 6-12-30. How do you get to 30? Wouldn't a 6/8 hit with $12 down pay out $14. putting you at $26? 

     

    Or the 5-15-35 on 5/9 - how are you getting to $15? Wouldn't the first hit pay $7, putting you at $12?

  2. No shit. If we had universal healthcare, I could see the rate of self-employment, entrepreneurship & start-ups increase dramatically upon adoption. It's one of the reasons I'm currently working for the man. Alone, I might risk going without but right now I've got to keep my daughter covered.

     

     

    For real though. Only reason I was able to make the jump to my own company a few years back is my wife has great insurance through Seton. Between insurance, self-emplyment double taxation, and a slew of other things, it's almost like the talk of American small business and entrepreneurship is a load of bullshit and the government exists only to serve big business. But I digress..

     

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

     

     

     

     

     

    • Like 1
  3. 9 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

    Do you really not understand angles and perception?

    I understand that there are people so dense and intellectually dishonest that they're unwilling to change the way they perceive things, despite overwhelming evidence proving their perception to be absurd and stupid.

    • Like 1
  4. 1 hour ago, Steamboat1874 said:

    Yes that is great but tell me old wise one.....which ref had this angle ???

    I will tell you...none.

    Both refs are on the sideline...one about eight yards downfield and the other one about eight yards upfield.

     

    Jesus Christ, dude. He's staring right at it.

    wv7nkg.png

    • Like 1
  5. 24 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

    He was salmon swimming upstream...he knew that going in. But he made a difference, he showed that there is a base of progressive people here and people who are leaning more his way, just not enough...yet.

    Look, Texas is the pretty blonde chick with big tits and a great personality. She might not get you at first, but she is always worth working for because if you blow up her skirts and she ends up liking you...she's a loyal bitch with a rich daddy. Beto should understand the patience of how to work that.

    And that is all I have to say on this. It was a thought mostly born out of concern for him running in such a large pack for an office that is sullied and lesser than what it was. He'll figure out what he wants and go for it and I'll be here ready to listen.

    I like Beto a lot and want him to have a future in politics. To that end, he probably needs his next race, whatever it may be, to be one he wins. Another loss might be too much to overcome for his long-term future. And I don't think he can just sit around and wait for the opportunity. His star is rising and momentum is everything.

    To me the most realistic race for him to win next, save another house run, is probably president. I'd put his chances of winning at maybe 1/4 (maybe 35% to win the nom and 90% to win the general). Does he have a better than 25% chance to beat Cornyn, or win the governorship? I don't think so, but I'm not saying or asking in a way looking for an argument. Genuinely wondering what people think what possible next race he has the highest chance to win. Can he beat Cornyn or Hot Wheels when he couldn't beat Cruz?

    To add - I don't think losing the primary would hurt him at all. So president seems to be a no brainer to me. And I'm pretty sure that Oprah thing will be an announcement.

    • Like 1
  6. 7 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

    I am. Fuck the Saints and their franchise and fanbase. They put a cash bounty on Favre in 2009. 

    Any misery to that fanbase and team is hilarious. Had 2 chances to put the game away after this call. Didn't. Benefitted from a no call on Goff the drive before.

    But now it's whining and crying about refs from them and it's absolutely hilarious.

    How many posts would I find on TOS with you crying about the Dez catch, if I went back and looked?

     

    O/U 50

  7. 5 hours ago, Steamboat1874 said:

    Was it so obvious no one should have missed it?

    No.

    Neither ref can tell exactly where that ball is when the contact happened and when you look at the replays from the angles the refs have you can't either. The ball is right there in real time.

     

    It's obvious you're being intentionally obtuse. The screencap below I pulled from the video YOU posted upthread, as "evidence" that it was a "bang bang" play or whatever nonsense you were spouting. The ball is at least 5 feet from the WR, and you can see the referee at the bottom looking DIRECTLY at the play. There's also another ref offscreen (you can see it in other videos) who is equally as close, staring directly at the play.

    Everything about your post is stupid.

    39ef76bd5a81d856cd581a2427e058da.jpg

    • Like 3
  8. 4 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

     

     

    Would be nice if PPP published the geographic breakdown of this poll. These numbers don't really matter if it's Harris running up the score in California or Beto getting numbers in Texas, a state he won't win (and if he does, the election was already a landslide anyway). 

    I want to see a poll like this for the states of MI, PA, OH, WI, and perhaps MN. That's all that matters in 2020.

    • Like 4
  9. I don't want that to happen, and I'm a Saints fan. The game already drags on too long as it is, and has too many commercials. It won't undo yesterday's shitshow, and it will hurt game flow.

     

    I don't know what you do. I have no idea what to make of it. I'm not a conspiracy guy and don't think it was rigged, but damn. Two refs were standing within 5 yards looking directly at the play. That crew should never work again (narrator: they will). The whole thing doesn't make any sense.

     

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

     

     

     

     

  10. The trap of letting so called conservatives define what it means to be fiscally responsible. Being fiscally liberal doesn't mean being fiscally irresponsible. I agree with your latter point, they definitely can be at times (hi bad_teammate!). 
    I agree with your point. I stopped considering Rs when it became apparenr the fiscal conservatism was lip service. Now I'm thinking lip service might have been lenient, where Republican "fiscal conservatism" basically means no welfare for anyone with dark skin. But i digress.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  11. That maybe the term "fiscally conservative" is a complete misnomer and has been used by conservatives to misrepresent themselves as the only fiscally responsible party. You can be fiscally liberal and also be fiscally responsible. In truth, in sounds like that is what you are. So, don't fall for the trap.  

    What trap? I haven't voted R in 5 cycles

     

    My point was that "super left wing or GTFO" types are off putting and dangerous.

     

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

     

     

     

    • Like 1
  12. Literally everyone wants to reduce waste. I've never met a liberal in my life who is like "we need more wasteful spending!"
    Never said otherwise. What are you arguing?

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  13. yes.

    "Socially liberal/fiscally conservative" is some South Park 2003 stuff and it never stops being funny.

    ""What good is having the right to sit at a lunch counter if you cannot afford to buy a hamburger?"

    - MLK"

    - Michael Scott

    I think we should all be equal, and not spend government money on ensuring any kind of actual equality.

    I think we should treat blacks equally, but the government shouldn't have or enforce regulations on businesses.

    Where we are is very bad, but the causes were all very good.

    What if you're extremely socially liberal and support most social programs, but are fiscally conservative in other ways. Like wanting to reduce defense spend, privatize SS, get out of foreign wars, and reduce waste.

     

    Does that pass your purity test or am I a GaryJohnsonBro?

     

    Actually scratch that, nobody gives a fuck what you think.

     

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

     

     

     

    • Like 1
  14. All 3 of them have generational, if not better; franchise QBs.
    Those coaches had something to do with those QBs having the success they have. Brees went from very good in San Diego to HOF caliber in New Orleans. Reid built the perfect system for Mahomes. And Brady largely attributes his success to Bill.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  15. 3 minutes ago, Foosters said:

    Cool. personality over positions.

    It is what it is. Hope the Dems come to grips with that before they nominate someone that loses to Trump, again. Now is not the time to make a statement. Now is the time to get Trump the fuck out of power.

  16. 4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    You were never going to vote for Warren anyway. The fact that a DNA test is a deal breaker

    Stopped here. If you're not even going to try to read and answer my posts with some intellectual honesty, then I'm not going to do the same for you. 

    You keep on doing you though. Peace.

     

  17. 6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    On a subconscious level, she was saying to the Trumpublicans that she isn’t going to ignore them.  She will listen to their concerns and criticisms and tell them the truth.  That has value because it’s a sign of respect.  Perhaps she can have some influence on those now having buyers remorse with Trump, if they listen.  She’s doesn’t consider them deplorables but victims of an ongoing malicious deception that has plagued the GOP since she left the Republican Party in the 90s.

     

    Oh come on man. This is some Trump-supporter level mental gymnastics. There wasn't anything that complex about it. She thought by showing some non-zero, percentage of a percentage Native American "heritage" that she'd own Donald Trump and defeat the Pocahontas thing once and for all. She thought she was getting ahead of it. She took the test, got the results showing she was like 4/10 of one percent Native American and said, "Yeah, this will definitely shut everyone up once and for all. Let's put this issue to bed!"

    Awful, awful judgement. You can't make unforced errors against Trump, and that was one of the worst unforced political errors in some time.

     

    • Like 1
  18. 2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    LMAO 

    If you were to poll Republicans six months ago:

    ”Should Elizabeth Warren release her DNA test results concerning her Native American heritage?”

    it would have been 90%+ YES.

    It would be that way today if she didn’t. 

    Not sure what your point is. You're saying she made the correct move in releasing her absurd test results because 90% of Republicans wanted her to? Just trying to be clear.

  19. 13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

     

    It might look like a miscalculation at the moment but is it really going to hurt her in the long run?  

     

    I saw her as a viable candidate for the Dem nomination until she did that. It was a disqualifying misstep for me. It was such a ridiculous lapse in judgement that it calls into doubt her ability to both govern, and survive a war with Trump. She didn't just take the hook, she swallowed it whole. Really poor decision on her part. A campaign with Trump will be rife with traps like that, since he's a grenade thrower, and she's shown no ability to deftly maneuver them. 

    I'm sure there are others like me. So yeah, I'd think it will hurt her to some degree.

    FWIW I'd obviously vote for her over Trump, still.

  20. I do think “deflectability” is a skill that will play a role in the eventual nomination. Republicans will scream bloody murder at any candidate, that is true, but criticisms “stick” to different candidates differently.

     

    While neither are even close to disqualifying, Beto’s arrests somehow “stick” to him far less than Warren’s Native American claims, despite probably being far more relevant to the issue of character. That was one of Hillary’s main problems... for whatever reason, a lot of the Right’s criticisms “stuck.”

     

    So far, Biden and Beto do appear to be the most immune to Republican attacks, and I think it’s wise to pay attention to that.

    This.

    A DWI is going to be a lot less sticky, especially in the places that matter (PA, MI, WI, OH), than Liz Warren "renouncing her white heritage to claim to be a minority". Which of course, is ridiculous caricature of what she did, but it's the angle the Republicans are going with. If you read between the lines of their attacks, they're saying "she's ashamed to be white!" which, combined with the fact that she's a coastal, Harvard liberal, is going to absolutely destroy her in the Rust Belt. Because let's be real, a lot of those votes that we need in the Rust Belt in order to get Trump out, are of the "I'm not a racist, I voted for Obama and have black friends!" crowd.

     

    Sure, the GOP is going to call everyone a socialist SJW, but it's not going to stick to everyone the same. Otherwise, you'd expect Hillary to have won easily, because Obama did, and they threw the same attacks at him.

     

    The candidate does matter.

    • Like 1
  21. 3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

    Is it that difficult to say the saints should beat either team, instead of would beat either team?  Things happen, but you seem determined that they don’t. 

    I mean it's not, but it's more fun this way.

  22. 13 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

    I was talking Chicago. Dallas was the 4 seed no matter what happened week 17. Chicago had a small chance at a bye if LA lost to SF at home who they pummeled.

    Now they're out of the playoffs. Using week 17 as a bye is a great strategy especially if you're bound to play wild card weekend.

    Ah, gotcha. The Bears were never going to tank a game to theoretically get the "right" 6 seed matchup, when they had a chance to get a bye. I realize that it was a huge long shot that SF beats the Rams, but you still don't tank a game if you have any shot at a bye and home field until the NFCCG. You might see that in the NBA, but no team in the NFL would ever do that, even if it's a 10% chance SF beats LA. That's crazy talk.

×
×
  • Create New...