Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantI’d honestly rather have Kupp, Woods, and Jefferson than OBJ. However, if the Rams could sign him and then trade him for picks, I’d be ecstatic.
It’s actually good chess to pick up a player with trade value, even though he may not be “needed” in any particular position room. The downside, of course, is that in order to sign players, it’s generally necessary to assure them they’ll play, and that they’re definitely a big part of the team’s plans. At least that’s my guess.
So, how to do something like that without being cruel and rotten?
Anyway, the Rams have raided the future of draft picks to such an extent, I’d give my blessing to such a “fib” in this case. It’s not as if Beckham wouldn’t land on his feet somewhere else, make millions, etc. etc. It’s not like shipping him out of the galaxy to mine dilithium.
If he goes unclaimed, sign him, and trade him. If not this year, then next.
Billy_TParticipantZooey,
I like the handle. No need to apologize, and I hope you know I’m just kidding with ya about the pronunciation stuff.
___
Back to your original comments regarding actual, practical things the Dems could do to basically own the electorate. I agree with all that stuff. Always thought that if the Dems had passed M4A back in 2009, instead of the ACA, they would have controlled DC for a generation at least. No Tea Party rise, and no Trump.
Have had this argument repeatedly with diehard Dems — at least in the past:
If the Dems had chosen the path of FDR 2.0 at least, after the 1960s and onward, say, instead of Republican Lite, they could have all but stopped the rise of the right in its tracks. As in, no Reagan, Bush, Gingrich, Dubya, McConnell, or Trump in the picture. If they had gone with M4A, tuition-free public education from cradle to grave, a serious Green revolution, and a living wage, the GOP wouldn’t stand a chance. Throw in End the wars, decriminalize all non-violent, victimless crimes, empty the jails of anyone who falls under that rubric, etc. etc. . . . and they’d send the GOP into permanent exile, democratically.
They coulda ruled the roost, basically, if they had done the moral, ethical, logical thing.
That’s beyond frustrating.
Billy_TParticipantLooks like ZN managed to resurrect my lost post from yesterday. No chance for me to edit it, or I’d reduce the smiley face. Sorry, folks.
. . . .
Billy_TParticipant(continued . . .)
Throw in mass media, owned by plutocrats and oligarchs, and they desperately want the duopoly too, so they’re never going to really tell the truth about how horrible the GOP is relative to the horrible Dems..==
One of the things i think about, is this: If a critical-mass of people somehow,
by magic, ‘woke up’ and developed a higher-political-consciousness, or
‘class consciousness’ or whatever you wanna call it — and there was a real
possibility of the nation tipping toward actual-socialism — What do you think the Democrats would Do? Or, lets say the Dems had a choice between Socialism or Fascism — which way do you think they’d top?I know what ‘i’ think
w
vI think the Dem power structure definitely hates socialism — even the idea of it, and that pisses me off to no end. They couldn’t be more wrong about all of it. Not sure, though, if they’d want fascism instead, if there were only two choices. But they’d definitely rather have Republicans in power than leftists, even if those leftists caucus with the Dems. I just don’t know if they’d pick fascism over leftist control. You might be right — I’m guessing you think they would. But I just don’t know about that.
Again, I think there’s a difference between Dem leadership, Dem politicians in the rank and file, non-politician Dems . . . and the folks pulling the strings above all of that. Each group has its own agenda, and within those groups, still more differences, blah blah blah. I’m not saying anything you guys don’t already know.
I just can’t get over where we are in 2021. All the shit we’re dealing with, deadly climate change, massive inequality, incipient fascism, a literal coup happened and is ongoing, endless lies and liars, the pandemic, etc. etc. It’s. Just. Too. Much.
For thousands of years, philosophers, poets, artists, musicians . . . . have been asking How to Live? After thousands of years, one would think we’d know. One would think we would have had that mass consciousness raising already and we’d be dealing with other things by now.
At least the Rams are good this year, and my Giants won 107 games and took the division!
Billy_TParticipantSorry for the mistaken post.
Not sure why you asked this to be moved. Mistaken posts are welcome in the Rams football forum too.
It was late. I was having trouble with me words. Probably should have used “misplaced.” Should have been in the politics forum, etc. etc.
Basically, it was a post about if anyone thought the Dems could sink the GOP, for good, if they really wanted to, given all the shhite the GOP has done in recent years. Seems to me that even a halfway competent political party could have done so, after Trump, an actual coup attempt (which is ongoing), plus all the lies, the criminal, deadly negligence regarding Covid, the endless attacks on minorities and women, the horrendous record on the environment, etc. etc.
The GOP hasn’t really suffered politically from any of it. It’s as if it’s just a natural, normal thing to attempt a coup every now and then, and tell people to drink bleach to cure a pandemic.
The Dems seem to want them to stay alive. They don’t seem to get that if the shoe were on the other foot, the GOP wouldn’t hesitate to end the Dems as a viable political party.
I’m guessing folks here agree with me that the donor class wants a two-party system intact. They don’t want just the Dems in charge, and the Dems listen to the donor class, as does the GOP. But it seems the latter has more leeway to go off the deep end, and still keep its donors in line. That kinda puzzles me.
Anyway . . . thoughts on if the Dems could destroy the GOP, if they wanted to, given Trump and the GOP’s support for autocracy/fascism, et al.
Billy_TParticipantI wish my Dad were still alive. He taught English for thirty years and was a real old-school stickler/perfectionist. I’m fairly good on the subject meself, but not in his class. So I will defer to your professional expertise of many a year.
You’ve done the legwork, obviously, and I haven’t. But, as I mentioned, it just sounds better to go with zo ee. I’ll plant my flag on the sound issue as a poet.
Will you at least admit to the superior sound?
;>)
Regardless of the spelling, would you rather be called to dinner from afar as zoo ee!! or zo ee!?
Billy_TParticipantWV,
I’m guessing you believe the Dems would choose fascism. Who knows? But one would think they’d pull their collective heads out of their azz and pick the best possible system, socialism, instead, if they had just those two choices. It’s an easy call. The easiest possible call.
Plus, if they recognized the shift in societal consciousness, as you describe it, I’m thinking they’d still want to win elections, they’d still want to compete against actual socialist parties, so they’d (perhaps cynically?) go along.
Their donors would want them to fight it all, of course. Basically, “That’s what we’re paying you for!!” And the media would try their best to continue their lies about socialism, until they just couldn’t budge the electorate any longer and they, too, gave in.
(Of course, in an actual socialist society, the media would no longer be owned by billionaires and private corporations would no longer exist, etc. So if we could just make the change, we could sustain it, IMO.)
But, as we’ve talked about before, that awakening is unlikely because the deck is so stacked against it upfront. Media, education systems, the endless barrage of corporate, pro-capitalist and anti-socialist messaging, etc. etc. Breaking free from all of that on a mass scale . . . It’s my dream, but it’s tragically unlikely in my lifetime . . . . though surveys do say that Gen Z leans leftist.
Billy_TParticipantIt’s possible that Zooey Deschanel’s parents weren’t experts in phonology.
And “Jaxon’s” and “Kaytlinn’s” parents were not experts in spelling.
Well, as we learned in the wonderful “Almost Famous,” Zooey Deshanel’s mother is Francis McDormand, and she’s never wrong.
I don’t know Jaxon and Kaytlinn from Adam or Aoife. But I’m guessing they’re just trying to be quirky.
Billy_TParticipantWV,
I just finished responding to your questions (from 10:36pm) with the most profound answer in the history of the Internet. Posted it. And it’s lost, for some reason.
You guys are so lucky!!
:>)
I’ll try again tomorrow.
Billy_TParticipantIt might be one of those US versus UK things, but I’m not sure. For instance, I think they pronounce “Zoology” like zoo ah lo gee. But we pronounce it like zo ah lo gee.
I think . . . .
Xenophobe trips people up, too. Should be zen o fobe. Not zine o fobe.
The thing that tips it over for me to zoh ee is because it sounds better.
:>) !!
That and Zooey Deschanel pronounces her own name zoh ee.
So, there!!
I just wish Salinger had weighed in, in public, before he went full on hermit. Others might now care, but that would be the last word for me.
Billy_TParticipant(continued . . .)
Throw in mass media, owned by plutocrats and oligarchs, and they desperately want the duopoly too, so they’re never going to really tell the truth about how horrible the GOP is relative to the horrible Dems. They’re going to try to create relative “balance.” One would have thought, prior to Trump, and prior to the coup attempt, especially, no politician or political party would recover from the last five or six years, and the media would make certain they didn’t.
The media, however, have mostly normalized Trump and the coup, with some pushback here and there. But I never would have guessed it possible, prior to 2015, say.
Pre-2015, one sure-fire way to end a career, and destroy a political party? A fascist coup attempt, or continue it. But it seems far too many Americans are “ho hum” about it all, at this point. Trump made them go numb, perhaps.
Billy_TParticipantThanks for the responses.
I agree with both of youze, mostly. Except, if memory serves, Zooey still doesn’t know how to pronounce his own name.
Didn’t we have a (mock) battle about that one years and years ago?
;>)
To add some entirely unnecessary and unwanted nuance:
Personally, I think there’s a huge difference between the parties. Not in the sense that one is good and the other bad. But in the sense that there are important distinctions regarding the depths of rottenness, cruelty, neglect, etc.
And, I’d say that the Dems in 2021, with a few exceptions, aren’t that different from moderate Republicans — but there aren’t any left in 2021. So, in a sense, the Dems today are just like moderate Republicans — from the 1990s and before that. Cuz, well, each time the Dems move further to the right, the Republicans have to double down and move twice as fast even further to the right. So they really aren’t “the same.”
And . . . given the ultra-competitive nature of capitalism, wanting to crush your rivals is a natural part of all that. Isn’t it actually unnatural that the Dems don’t seem to want to do that, especially when the other part does? That’s what really confuses me at times.
So . . . there must be a difference between Dem party goals and the Dem party donor class goals. The latter, I would think, loves the relative stability of the duopoly, while the two wings of the money party probably want each other gone. A conflict of sorts, with the donor class usually calling the shots, one way or another.
Billy_TParticipantYeah, I like Perkins waaay more. Wish they had played him, and pulled Stafford earlier than they did.
It’s already been said how slowly they started, and how worried we fans were in the first quarter. I agree with all of that. To me, one of the keys is Stafford starts slowly, in-game, and per season. It’s understandable, in part, given a brand new team, etc. etc. . . . But I think if Stafford picks it up, the Rams will follow.
Or? We may just have to get used to an erratic QB, and an erratic team. That’s kinda what I’m seeing so far anyway. Stafford can look like an elite QB on one play, and a backup on another. Obviously, he’s mostly the former, not the latter. But it may well be the thing keeping him from universally being considered a Top Five guy. He lacks . . . consistency.
Henderson has stepped up. Always liked his game, and I actually wondered why they drafted Akers. Now, of course, I’m glad they did. But I thought Henderson would have been fine as lead back. Like what Michel has done so far. Good pickup.
I’m still gobsmacked about the Tutu Atwell pick. Noting against him. He’s a tough, try-hard, special athlete. But it’s just a dumb pick at that point in the draft, and the more games the Rams play, the worse it seems.
On defense. Very happy with overall play, and it seems like they’ve picked up the pace markedly too. Donald is on fire, etc. If healthy, Terrell Lewis is a game-changer, and may make it possible for them to trade Floyd for picks in the offseason, if the Rams could find some takers. Hollins and Lewis on the outside is a strong combo. Obo seems to be finally coming on too.
Obviously a great game by Rapp. With his average speed, if he can stay in the box, and more athletic DBs can cover deep, he’s good. But I still think they miss Johnson. Much better athlete, etc.
Most of the game was a joy to watch.
Billy_TParticipantI think it’s all the fault of the numbers. They should never have allowed such chaos. Keep them the way they’ve been since the time of Sargon of Akkad. Back then, your defensive linemen were in the 70s and 80s, linebackers in the 50s and 60s, DBs in the 20s, 30s and 40s, with rare exceptions. Deviation typically resulted in being thrown to the crocodiles, unless Mrs. Sargon saved you.
Let just anyone wear #1 and you’re going to get double punts and worse.
Billy_TParticipantSpeaking of all the above. You’ve likely already seen this, but just in case:
The Pandora Papers:
From their “About the Project” page:
The Pandora Papers investigation lays bare the global entanglement of political power and secretive offshore finance.
Based upon the most expansive leak of tax haven files in history, the investigation reveals the secret deals and hidden assets of more than 330 politicians and high-level public officials in more than 90 countries and territories, including 35 country leaders. Ambassadors, mayors and ministers, presidential advisers, generals and a central bank governor appear in the files.
The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, a nonprofit newsroom and network of journalists centered in Washington, D.C., obtained more than 11.9 million financial records, containing 2.94 terabytes of confidential information from 14 offshore service providers, enterprises that set up and manage shell companies and trusts in tax havens around the globe.
The files reveal secret offshore holdings of more than 130 billionaires from 45 countries including 46 Russian oligarchs. In 2021, according to Forbes, 100 of the billionaires had a collective fortune of more than $600 billion. Other clients include bankers, big political donors, arms dealers, international criminals, pop stars, spy chiefs and sporting giants.
ICIJ shared the files with 150 media partners, launching the broadest collaboration in journalism history.
Billy_TParticipantNot sure about their story. They’re pretty new, so it’s not easy to get a lot of info on them.
But the station that introduced me to their music did say this: While they loved their first single, they may not be able to play their second one, which is apparently too “racy.” This surprised me, because I didn’t think that station cared about being too sexually provocative, etc.
Quirky, “cheeky” band. I think they have a bright future.
Billy_TParticipantDidn’t the Rams D start kinda “slow” last year too? Or am I wrong about that one? Didn’t Staley need a coupla weeks to get his bearings? And then the Rams D just dominated.
I have a feeling they’ll get better as the season progresses, but I’m less sanguine about the running game, unless they get funky. They’ve just been crushed by the injury bug, again, so it’s time to give the ball to Jake!!
Stafford is also gonna get better, which should scare the scheet out of the rest of the league. Imagine how good he’d be with a healthy Toddy Gurley in his prime?
Billy_TParticipant“The country NEEDS a strong Republican Party.”
This is really stupid. The Dems advocate for the continuation of the party determined to destroy the Dems.
A bit of a sidetrack here, but it’s related. How do you view the terms themselves? Oligarchs and oligarchy, plutocrats and plutocracy?
I’ve always thought (like Hedges) of Oligarchy as Rule by the Few, and plutocracy as Rule by the Rich. It’s more complicated than that, of course. And under capitalism, there’s just not an instance of the few ruling the roost without also being rich. So, they’re perhaps oligarchs and plutocrats? Which also raises more questions.
Is a politician with temporary power over this or that part of government an “oligarch,” or does she or he have to have lasting power over things? Are the oligarchs the folks behind the scenes, pulling the strings of the pols? Or the pols themselves? Are McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer, McCarthy, et al “oligarchs?” Or their donors? Both/and? The whole sad lot of them?
And what would constitute a “plutocrat” these days? In the past, one would likely say the Vanderbilts and the Astors, but maybe not plain old rich people without direct power over events . . . or the desire to control those events, etc.
I haven’t done any serious research on the matter, but I think 99% of the folks in Congress are millionaires many times over, with some in the 9-figure realm. But they have 10-figure, 11-figure, and 12-figure folks backing/controlling them.
Anyway, what’s your take on who’s what and why, and is it absurd, in your opinion, for me to even ask such questions?
;>)
Billy_TParticipantZooey,
That’s a surprisingly good article by Brooks. With the exception of a coupla places here and there, it could have been written by Thomas Frank. Perceptive, realistic, and empathetic.
Over the past few decades there has been a redistribution of dignity — upward. From Reagan through Romney, the Republicans valorized entrepreneurs, C.E.O.s and Wall Street. The Democratic Party became dominated by the creative class, who attended competitive colleges, moved to affluent metro areas, married each other and ladled advantages onto their kids so they could leap even further ahead.
We’ve talked about it before, but if the Dems had gone with FDR 2.0, at least, instead of choosing to be Republican Lite (from roughly the early 1970s on), not only would this country be far better off, but (ironically) the Dems would pretty much own the electorate. No way is there a majority of voters who choose Reagan/Thatcher/Chicago School over a true working-class party, which the Dems could have been. If they had 100% rejected neoliberalism, and updated and expanded the New Deal to max out on serious inclusion, they’d all but ensure electoral dominance for a generation or more.
But they’d rather the status quo win than a truly progressive party/platform. That’s unconscionable, morally and ethically, and stupid politically. Stupid, not just because they could have dominated electorally, but because their rotten choices helped set the table for the Trumps and the rise of the autocrats who may well make it impossible for Dems to win in all but the bluest of the blue.
What could have been, etc. etc.
Billy_TParticipantGood response to my far too many responses, Zooey.
;>)
To walk things back a bit: I actually do see a useful space for that oligarchy/autocracy paradigm. It also reminds me a lot of what happened in Germany, where conservative oligarchs put Hitler in power, thinking they could control him. That obviously failed. But what a lot of people forget is this: eventually, German oligarchs and Hitler the autocrat made peace of a kind, and they coexisted, and the oligarchs made massive fortunes with Hitler’s help and blessing . . . until, etc. As in, for the most part, they weren’t in opposition. Exceptions, and so on. But for the most part.
Back to Hedges’ point regarding our current situation. I’m probably misreading him (and others), but I get the sense that he’s setting up the opposition like this:
Dem/Oligarchs versus GOP/Autocrats — with, as you say he notes, the autocrats being worse. To me, this ignores the massive influence of billionaires/corporate America on the GOP and Trump, and paints a limited narrative which the GOP also tries to paint . . . a kind of Wall Street versus Main Street thingy, with the evil corporate Dems versus the god-fearing main-streeter Republicans. Hedges and company obviously don’t buy into much of the GOP narrative, and they do see the Trumpified GOP as lining up with autocracy. But I often get the impression that they’re more pissed off at corporate Dems than GOP autocrats. And, again, I think they forget that the GOP is controlled by oligarchs (and plutocrats) too. It’s not a Dem-only toxin. Both/and.
Again, I may be misreading them. But my sense is that this dichotomy influences their push to be dismissive of stuff like Russiagate, Ukraine, even the ongoing coup, and to basically suggest (or say openly) that none of the investigations into Trump, past, present, and future, are legit cuz they’re just oligarchical machinations.
More later . . . Your thoughts?
Billy_TParticipantAll too often the Pentagon doesn’t even have to push Hollywood to play the jingoist game. Its studio heads, and/or its multinational heads, don’t need any prodding to produce xenophobic, jingoistic bullshit. And, of course, it often sells all too well.
In the excellent Forget the Alamo, the authors talk about Disney doing this on his own via several of his projects, most notably the Davy Crockett shows. Basically, setting them up as anti-communist analogues. And sometimes it’s the work of big stars, too, like Wayne, who pushed to make his Alamo movie in that vein. Anti-communist, right-libertarian, rah rah, etc. etc.
The perfect unholy storm: Pentagon pressure mixed with capitalist ownership of the entertainment complex, with that ownership rarely being to the left of paleo-conservative.
Billy_TParticipantJust read the rest of it. It gets a lot better as he goes.
Astute commentary on autocracy, which has always been a strength of Hedges. One of the best journalists on the subject, ever, in fact.
It’s actually almost strong enough to make up for what came before it. But, this part may be at the heart of his mistaken assumptions:
We must defy the oligarchs as well as the autocrats. If we replicate the cowardice of the liberal class, if we sell out to the oligarchs as a way to blunt the rise of autocracy, we will discredit the core values of a civil society and fuel the very autocracy we seek to defeat.
I think this is a false choice, and I think it’s also foundational to his desire to all but dismiss investigations into Trump. It’s just not an either/or thing. It’s not ever “If you support the various investigations into Trump, you sell out to the oligarchs!” It’s self-evidently not. We can defy oligarchs and autocrats, and hold them all accountable. In fact, the fear of appearing to support oligarchy, if that fear provokes our dismissal of trying to hold Trump accountable, is a victory for oligarchy, flat out.
Hedges seems to forget that people can be both (oligarch and autocrat), and our system make it even likely for them to coexist. He also seems to forget that the vast majority of those in power who support, defend, and protect Trump are oligarchs and plutocrats.
Thanks for posting the article, Zooey.
Billy_TParticipantNot so quick follow up:
This “oligarchs against autocrats” is a bizarre formulation, and I honestly don’t see how it clarifies the current situation at all. I actually think it obscures it.
It also radically overstates the degree of “cooperation” between the two major parties, at least in this instance. Hedges can’t name more than a handful of Republicans who’ve joined forces to battle Trump, because that’s all there is. I guess the quality of “oligarchs” and their coercive powers must be really slipping these days, when things are so lopsided in that regard. As in, Trump’s support within the GOP is astonishingly high, especially given all the crap he’s done, including attempting a coup.
And one would think that anyone who said “That’s wrong!” wouldn’t be immediately cast under the sinister umbrella of “oligarch.” Instead, they might, oh, just perhaps, be applauded? If for no other reason than the old “stopped clock is correct twice a day” rationale?
Seriously, why does it always have to be this Manichean battle with guys like Hedges in the Trump era? Paradoxically, they’ve radically oversimplified things and fail to use the most direct KISS method possible. Oversimplified in grouping (as deep-staters) anyone who works to hold Trump accountable, while repeatedly missing the most obvious elephant in the room: Trump and the GOP are just guilty of doing all the shit they’ve been accused of doing, and there is no international plot to bring him down.
IMO, Hedges and his niche peers are applying “either/or” doctrine to “both/and” situations.
As in, yeah, the Dems suck. And, yeah, our country is ruled by the super-rich, by the capitalist system, etc. etc. But there is absolutely zero logic in leaping to the assumption that any of that means the following:
All the investigations into Trump supposedly served the interests of the Power Elite, so that was the only reason they occurred. Not because Trump committed illegal, sadistic, corrupt acts on a regular basis, before, during and after his president . . . but simply because the “oligarchs” wanted to crush him.
If Trump had been able to invent the perfect defense, he couldn’t have come up with a better one than the one handed to him on a silver platter by Hedges and company.
Billy_TParticipantA lot there to unpack, and I didn’t read the entire thing yet, cuz it immediately sparked wonder. Again. Wonder at how Trump has managed to make otherwise sensible, intelligent people lose their minds. A wonder at the bizarre stubbornness apparent in some leftists who simply can’t even contemplate the possibility that Trump is just guilty, full stop. He’s just guilty of what he’s been accused off, full stop, and that it’s a Trumpian/GOP talking point to distract and confuse us all by making this into a “deep state” affair.
Hedges writes:
So, for example, censorship is wrong, unless the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop are censored, or Donald Trump is banished from social media. Conspiracy theories are wrong, unless those theories, such as the Steele dossier and Russiagate, can be used to damage the autocrat. The misuse of the legal system and law enforcement agencies to carry out personal vendettas are wrong, unless those vendettas are directed at the autocrat and those who support him. Giant tech monopolies and their monolithic social media platforms are wrong, unless those monopolies use their algorithms, control of information and campaign contributions to ensure the election of the oligarch’s anointed presidential candidate, Joe Biden.
1. What censorship, regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop? And what was the rationale behind any investigation into that laptop? If Russiagate was all supposedly an invention of “oligarchs,” what was Trump’s attempt to plant evidence on Biden’s son, while Trump was president? And Trump was banished from two or three social media platforms because he repeatedly broke their rules, literally fomented violence, radically increased death threats against other Americans, and spread dangerous lies about Covid and the election. He was actually coddled and pampered far too long and kept on those platforms long after he should have been banned.
2. The Steele Dossier wasn’t a conspiracy theory. It was a collection of data on Trump, none of which has been disproven, evah, and the only “conspiracy theory” in that case is the one that claims it was the reason for the Mueller investigation. It wasn’t. It was a less than minor piece of the puzzle, with the main spark being Trump’s own personnel, like George Papadopoulos, and his own actions, which freaked out intelligence officials. The real conspiracy theory is the one that claims all of these Republicans, career officials, diplomats, intel agencies from around the world, and reporters from around the world, managed to meet in a room and try to bring down Trump. And Hedges, among others, fails to deal with the fact that Mueller held back on multiple fronts, like investigating Trump’s finances and financial ties, which would have sunk him. If there was this international cabal of “oligarchs” trying to bring him down, why hold back?
3. Hedges provides zero proof that any agency or agency personnel carried out a “personnel vendetta” against Trump. He just throws it out there as a part of larger generalized accusation of hypocrisy in the section quoted. There’s no evidence that any of that happened, though we do know for a fact, and Trump told us repeatedly in public, that he constantly went after his enemies.
4. Now, the last part may be the most absurd accusation of all. That Big Tech supposedly used its powers to appoint Biden. In reality, study after study has shown that those algorithms favor right-wing narratives, including far-right conspiracy theories to this day about Covid and the Election. And Big Tech despises “socialism” and leftists in general. Try to set up a news feed on your phone and see how rarely actual leftists show up.
In short, Hedges, in the above section, makes bad assumption after bad assumption, without any factual foundation or logic to support them, and . . . well, to say the least, I find this disappointing.
The suggestion is — as it is with the Greenwalds and company — that all the investigations into Trump were/are bogus, and just one more example of the Establishment lashing out against its perceived threats. Knowingly or unknowingly, they echo Trump/GOP bogus, obviously self-serving talking points.
Billy_TParticipantBernie Casey. Track and field star in college. Very fast, and one of those rare Rams receivers who was also big. Great deep threat.
Az Hakim. Personally, I’d take Hakim in his prime over DJ. Much more elusive. Probably more allusive, too.
And Smith must be forgetting Holt. He was a 4.4 guy. Bruce was just a tad slower on the other side. But those two scared defenders to death. Flipper has already been mentioned.
But I’m happy DJ is with the Rams this season, though someone needs to remind him to get into the endzone before he starts to celebrate. Especially this season, when the refs may well flag that kind of thing as “taunting.”
Billy_TParticipantZooey,
Have you ever gone to a game in LA? Was wondering about the crowd and crowd noise. I’ve only seen them in SF (twice), and all the other times via TV. But in recent years it seems like they don’t get a lot of home-game advantages from crowd noise, etc. At least judging from the TV stuff. But the announcers were saying it was extremely loud yesterday.
As a native Cali guy, what’s your take on the potential for 12th-man effects at So-Fi this season?
Side note: The folks on Get up! this morning were saying the Rams are the best team in football now. I agree.
Billy_TParticipantYes, slow start from Stafford. In fact, I don’t think he’s found his stride yet. I think his passing is still slightly off. Lotsa underthrows, and he’s not leading his receivers enough across the field. But he’s finding ways to make things work, and the rest of the team is playing really well, especially the offensive line, which is surprising the hell out of me.
If Kupp doesn’t make All Pro this year, something is really wrong with the folks making those picks. Right now, I think he’s a top 5 receiver, and I don’t believe he runs just a 4.6 forty. Gotta be faster than that. And, of course, it only matters how fast you run in pads, on game day. Route-running extraordinaire, blocks selflessly, great hands, etc. Woods too, of course. All of those things. And Van Jefferson looks like the Rams hit big on a third rounder.
Uh, hmmm. But Atwell? I still gotta wonder, What were they thinking using a second on him. Tough kid, obviously fast. But, you don’t use your first pick on a guy who isn’t going to see the field all that often . . . and will never be more than your #3. As good as Jefferson looks, he likely won’t get even that far.
Anyway . . . the game was a lotta fun to watch. The Rams are fer reel.
Billy_TParticipantWhy are conservatives always posting pictures of capitalism to prove that socialism is bad?
Oh, and this is that pithy, snarky, Twitter-friendly way of putting things . . . I wish I had that gene.
Well done, Zooey.
Billy_TParticipantI don’t have a pithy, snarky, Twitter-friendly way of putting this. What? This surprises you? But how many times do leftists have to see posts like the Breitbart one, or the Marjorie Taylor Greene one, or the gazillion others just like it, before they give up on their
bat-shit crazy, pathetically naivebrilliant idea of forming coalitions with the far-right to defeat centrist Dems?Seriously? They can’t see how ferociously the far-right hates us and everything we stand for? How many times do far-right politicians, media personalities, and their so-called “thought leaders” have to blame all the world’s ills on “the left” — especially “socialism” and “communism” — before leftists put that idea to bed for good? Shit, they’re even blaming drone strikes on us. And when was the last time the far-right said no to a drone strike? Um, that would be never.
I’ve been pretty good in recent months, staying away from the political, but this stuff still burns me. It’s just too close to the Kevin Bacon, with the paddle, in the Frat House scene in “Animal House.”
Billy_TParticipantI wish Goff well.
Personally, I still think the Rams gave up way too much for Stafford, though I think he’s a better QB than Goff. Better arm talent, especially. Has shown some surreal toughness throughout his career, too.
It’s kinda like this:
I really like cheeseburgers, if they’re lean, grass-fed, high-quality, etc. But I love a good steak and lobster dinner. I’m just not going to trade you my cheeseburger and my house for your steak and lobster dinner. I’m good with eating my modest cheeseburger in my modest house, thank you very much. I think I can “win” with that combo too.
-
AuthorPosts
