Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/23/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
  2. 2 points
    Warning...Warning...Abort Mission! Abort Mission!!!
  3. 2 points
    When this story was breaking, CNN, MSNBC, etc. were saying "This is an unconfirmed report from Buzzfeed". So if it's unconfirmed, why the fuck are you reporting it as fact? When 60 Minutes became the #1 show in 1974, Executive Producer Don Hewitt said it was a double-edged sword. He felt vindicated because until that moment the news divisions at the networks were regarded with disdain by the programming execs.; a boring, necessary evil and financial drain on the network. But Hewitt knew that everything would change once the network execs saw that the news divisions could actually make money for the network. Now news would be packaged as entertainment. People forget (or are too young to remember) that in the 1970's 60 Minutes was a serious investigative news magazine. While they did some 'fluff' entertainment pieces the majority of their stories were serious investigative stories. Watergate, Syria----Mike Wallace's interviews with Yasser Arafat royally pissed off the PLO at his "disrespect towards Chairman Arafat." Wallace exposed government officials in Chicago and L.A. who were getting illegal kickbacks. He was interviewing the Shah of Iran as early as 1974 and exposing, to the State Departments dismay, the nefarious shit going on between the Shah and the U.S. government. He was one of the first to report that the Shah was facing some serious opposition in Iran 2 years before the embassy takeover. ALL of the 'news' networks, etc---CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, Breitbart---ALL are doing a tremendous disservice to the American electorate.
  4. 1 point
    The AP members were College ranking voters in Football and Mens & Womens Basketball. That all changed in 2012, when the committee was used to also semi-rank NFL teams..this was the list of voters from 2017. https://mvpvoting.wordpress.com/ap-voters am not a big fan of a lot of these voters.Most are NY based..butt.Let the votes fall where they may as a individual award... But no Team added more individuals to kick start a new winning culture like the Cleveland Browns..NoBody! Good Luck Brownies..
  5. 1 point
  6. 1 point
    Gete'r'done Dorsey!! https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/01/22/browns-have-begun-contract-talks-with-perriman-higgins/?fbclid=IwAR32r10tegeGS0a5j1Wd3Dm8-LuLjbHRgQGS4rhGLPgJylFJrzlrJKVfpSM
  7. 1 point
    Our government officials have turned this into a game of who can out petty who. If this isn't the red flag that shows you these pigs, both D and R, are exatly alike - then I don't know what to tell you.
  8. 1 point
  9. 1 point
    Collins is more likely to be cut than Stanton .....
  10. 1 point
    Ref's miss calls, make them when they don't see them. (the hit to Brady's head that wasn't, the non fumble against us that should've been a td for us.) This is not new. It's unfortunate that humans blow calls. What they should do, going forward, is to put it in the hands of the coaches, under the coaches challenge rules. I don't want to see some guy in New York controlling the game and stopping the game every third play from scrimmage. If a PI call is made or not, a coach can challenge it. Offside, false start, a blatant holding. A coach can challenge all of 'em (a specific incident of course). But the coach only has a couple of challenges per half so he has to judge the importance of the challenge at hand.
  11. 1 point
    Right on.. I've moved on from this idiot...
  12. 1 point
    Agreed ..... Refs determine too many games whether its a missed call or a bullshit penalty ..... red flags needs to be extended .... all plays reviewable whether its in the 1st 2 minutes or the last 2
  13. 1 point
  14. 1 point
    Opinionated, yes. I don't believe there is much evidence to call Grossi well informed or intelligent.
  15. 1 point
    I did like Gipper's comment- Brady is like the vampire you can't kill... Where's Buffy when you need her? I vote bringing her out of retirement. (for the record, I never watched a single episode)
  16. 1 point
    Not I.. In Josh's case it will be up to the team if he gets one or not, I'll bet NOT.
  17. 1 point
    I can not confirm or deny the first part of your opening statement, but if true, the pot has officially met the kettle. Either the lack of self awareness is profound or the hypocrisy is genuine. Honestly, comparing the race card to tds is kind of a deflection in of itself, but it's not worth the keystrokes to go there. The whole "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" routine with racism is dumb though. I'll tell you again, people don't use the race card to simply "deflect". If i call you a pedophile right now, you won't consider it deflection. You could potentially sue me for slander, not deflection, if I did. I'm not denying tds in situations is deflection, but the race card is not. A $25k a semester education should make this an easy concept for you. No one is slandering you when they say you have tds. The intent, motivation, purpose, whatever you want to call it, is not the same. The race card is not a misdirection to avoid further conversation, it doesn't even require conversation. In fact, it can be used to prohibit conversation. It can and was used in a variety of diffent ways. It's a political Swiss army knife. Deflection is just a diluted definition of what the race card is, so you can feel clever. It's dumb, try harder.
  18. 1 point
  19. 1 point
    Who cares if he does or he doesn’t
  20. 1 point
    So I just looked at Landry's statistical season...and for almost half the games he caught 50% or less of his targets. Now that seems sub par. But you have to consider that at some point the QB HAS TO throw the ball. (or run, throw it away or eat it) So who would you pick to throw the ball at, such that only he could get it, not the defender, but it's going to take an incredible effort and catch? You'd probably go with Landry. Especially early on, when Njoku was dropping passes. - And Landry came through with some circus catches. Landry was on the field for us all season...contributing every week...even when he was dinged and thought that he might not be active for Sunday. Might as well say he had five 100 yard games (4 acutally, one was 97 yards). With all of the young, unproven receivers he was surrounded with, he had a pro bowl type year.
  21. 1 point
    He’s not my go to guy. Just one guy I hear on the radio. but it just seems that you have some personal vendetta against him that borders on the obsessive. This rant is evidence of that. I mean did he screw your wife or something.
  22. 1 point
    There's no right or wrong here.. Landry is productive for us.. End of story..
  23. 1 point
    Stopped here gip. Rest doesn't matter. Not worth a back and forth, cause I was just stating fact. I live in Pittsburgh, don't have to consume groosi if I don't want to, cause he's not on my local radar. I'm laughing at the trainwreck is all ... No feathers to even be ruffled on my end. Browns have been irrelevant so long, ESPN can pay 'intentionally vague' to cover a team no one cared about, but that'll change if baker continues to flourish. And in the midst, groosi so savy that he drew the ire of his teams FQB....same as he did the then DC 3G.... "Are you Tony?" Sorry he's you're go-to guy, but he's a legacy of print media, and needs to hang it up....cause frankly, browns fans deserve better than that asshat writing shit for public consumption thats as credible as samuel rowbotham. So I'll continue to point out his incompetence...he sucks, and at this new juncture of the browns excitement, I'd rather read people that don't suck. Mary Kay is just as bad, but for a different reason.
  24. 1 point
    Coming from one of the most condescending posters on this board that only graces us with his presence now and then, as he watches over the monkeys on the political board waiting to show us the light.... ... man come on I didn't move any goalposts. That doesn't even fit here. Conservatives are using TDS to deflect criticism from their public, political figure. Liberals were using the race card to deflect criticism from their public, political figure (and if you believe this board, it happened all of the time and was never, ever justified... but that's something else). Are they exactly the same in every single aspect? No, clearly not. But they're being used for the same purpose. If the people using TDS had the opportunity to always call someone racist for criticizing Trump they would (though, they've tried). Is it worse to be a racist than someone with TDS? Yes. But the point is how each political group is using the phrases to deflect criticism. We'd have a better view of the 1 to 1 if there were actually liberal versions of some of the far right posters here.
  25. 1 point
    When this story was breaking, CNN, MSNBC, etc. were saying "This is an unconfirmed report from Buzzfeed". I don't remember them making the disclaimer on the Indians story. Maybe they did with the BuzzFeed attorney Cohen story. But even if they did the damage has been done it's already gone viral and everybody has seen it and most Stooges think that this Indian was attacked by Republican teenagers. WSS WSS---semantics aside, I think we are both in agreement on this. Not every 'reporter' made the disclaimer---I specifically recall Chuck Todd and at least one other talking head saying that it was unconfirmed. But to me, the disclaimer is not the issue, nor does it let the person reporting the story off the hook. 'Unconfirmed' is the equivalent of "I know a guy who knows a guy..." Until it is confirmed it is just bullshit and shouldn't be reported as fact. And the news services do a tremendous disservice to the electorate and to the country when they do this kind of shit. It also amazes me (I guess it shouldn't) that they can be so tone deaf. The news organizations bitch and moan over Trump calling them Fake News! and then turn right around and give him ammunition.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00