So, wv, how do you explain why jerks with guns never shoot up a police station?

That O-line is awful.
Can’t keep blocks or get to the right guy in time.
Awful.

Fisher was a proven coach all right. A proven .500 coach.

If Hillary isn’t corrupt, why did the donations to the Clinton Foundation suddenly dry up once she lost the election?

Here’s the stadium that the Chargers will play in in LA:
http://www.lifetasteslikefood.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Step-6.jpg

zn wrote:

who you got

Patz v. Steelers

Falcons v. Packers

I have to admit I would have the most fun watching a Falcons/Steelers superbowl.

Packers IMO are not really contenders without Nelson. I know they beat Dallas but still.

_____________________________________

I agree. I would be happy to see that matchup.

wv wrote:

Obama Parting Shot Aims At Brennan, Clapper, Clinton: “The DNC Emails Were Leaked”
link:http://www.moonofalabama.org/

Three U.S. Intelligence Agencies (CIA, NSA and FBI) claim that IT-Systems of the Democratic National Committee were “hacked” in an operation related to the Russian government. They assert that emails copied during the “hack” were transferred by Russian government related hackers to Wikileaks which then published them.

President Obama disagrees. He says those emails were “leaked”.

Wikileaks had insisted that the emails it published came from an insider source not from any government. The DNC emails proved that the supposedly neutral Democratic Party committee had manipulated the primary presidential elections in favor of the later candidate Hillary Clinton. This made it impossible for the alternative candidate Bernie Sanders to win the nomination. Hillory Clinton, who had extremely high unfavorable ratings, lost the final elections.

The President of the United States disagrees with those Intelligence Services. He says that the DNC emails were “leaked”, i.e. copied by an insider, and then transferred to Wikileaks. (At the time around the leaking the DNC IT-administrator Seth Rich was found murdered for no apparent reason in the streets of Washington DC. The murder case was never solved.)

Here is President Obama in his final press conference yesterday:

First of all, I haven’t commented on WikiLeaks, generally. The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether Wikileaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC emails that were leaked.

The DNC emails “that were leaked” – not “hacked” or “stolen” but “leaked”.

One wonders if this is a parting shot is primarily aimed at the involved Intelligence Agencies led by James Clapper and John Brennan. Or is dissing Hillary Clinton and her narrative the main purpose?

The presidential judgement could change the political pressure towards a new cold war with Russia if the mainstream media would pick it up and discuss it. But the media are widely invested in the “hacking” claims (and even create their own ones from hot air). They are also furthering the anti-Russian narrative. We therefore can not expect that they will report this presidential parting shot at all.

h/t – Shuaib M. Almosawa

__________________________________________________

If they were “leaked”, then why did he try to “punish” the Russians, yet pardoned Manning?
Obama is more devious than ever.

sanbagger wrote:

bnw wrote:

It should be obvious. REBUILD. It is yet another rebuild. But when since 2004 hasn’t it been a rebuild? Solid players have their head in the game. Stupid penalties abound every year. When is the last time the Rams as a team could be described as having their head in the game? 2004? When is the last time the Rams had a competent offense? The Rams defense had been rebuilt of late yet this year regressed to the point that it needs a rebuild. Special teams are almost finally there but watching Tavon Austin’s piss poor judgement on returns or worse fumbling on returns is too much and with the coaching change it too will be rebuilt

The penalties have been a constant since Fisher arrived and I put that on the HC, always have.

I don’t recall a total rebuild of the D…I do know this team has had a revolving door of sorts at the coordinator positions, and the new coordinator is gonna want players that fit their scheme…if anything, I think that hindered the team from gaining any continuity. The D played less aggressive this year…I think that had to do with injuries to the DB’s and not having continuity.

ST’s have been there for the last couple of years and while you may not appreciate TA, prior to this year he had been a top 5 returner each season and has the breakaway speed required to make the other teams pay attention.

I disagree with a complete rebuild but I guess that depends on the incoming coach and players he needs to run his scheme…for example Barron, does he fit in the role GW had him, will the new D coordinator be fine running a 4-2-5 D?

_____________________________________________________

To me there isn’t much difference between a “complete rebuild” and “twixting” the roster.
We need a HC who is concerned about the whole picture: getting football smart and dedicated players, getting coordinators who can be their own mini HC with their respective parts of the team, and can keep the game day wisdom in every moment.
There are some keys: what will the new HC do with the O-line? Approach to improving the WR corp? Improving the consistency of the defense?
We need a general.

Billy_T wrote:

As a leftist, I’m kinda baffled when I read other leftists seemingly defending Putin and Russia. He’s the king of the oligarchs, and likely the world’s richest man, and his Russia is hard right, ideologically.

We both have capitalist empires, and I see both of them as illegitimate entities. But Russia is now what our own far right would probably want us to be. Even more anti-democratic, anti-labor, anti-environment than we already are. More capitalist-crazed as well.

I really don’t get it.

I don’t know who started this cyberwar, and it really doesn’t matter. We’re both guilty. We’re both wrong. We’re both trying to extend empire in so many ways, and we both keep swatting at each other’s beehives. But that doesn’t mean we have to automatically assume that our government is lying about the other guy, and believing them in this case isn’t an endorsement of American policies we reject.

To me, it’s just a logical progression of this game of thrones between us. Two very powerful state actors, with one having the edge economically and militarily, while the other has the edge in the cyber arena. They’re going to take advantage of that and the fact that we’re a much softer target than they are.

It has nothing to do with whiny Dems, at least from my perspective. Clinton lost primarily because she was a poor candidate, couldn’t connect with enough fence-sitters to matter, and her party, the Dems, have played the centrist card for too long. Plus, Bill Clinton’s sexual history basically cancelled out the Access Hollywood tapes for enough people to change their votes. Pretty much any other Dem would have whipped Trump just on that issue alone. It took a Clinton to snatch defeat from the mouth of victory, etc. etc.

Yeah, I think Putin wanted to put Trump in the White House, and all of his moves regarding his cabinet to be make that seem even more logical. Again, saying so doesn’t mean one buys Democratic Party excuses, or trusts American intel blindly. It just adds up. It’s just the logical progression of this game of thrones.

________________________________________________________

I agree with you, Billy, on this one.
Very well put.

Billy_T wrote:

NewMexicoRam wrote:

If the concept of “good and evil” come within ourselves, how does that negate the existence of a supreme intelligent being, otherwise thought of as God? In your initial response, you indicated that the existence of evil helped you to decide not to follow the Christian experience.

If there were a supreme being, an all-knowing, all-seeing, compassionate father-god, say, he wouldn’t allow this. He wouldn’t allow so much misery and suffering. He would stop our endless wars, our sadism toward each other and Nature. He wouldn’t be okay with someone living like a king while another grows up in the slums or worse.

And if he were okay with that, why would anyone want to “worship” such a monster? And what purpose would he serve to begin with?

________________________________________________________________

If there is such a supreme being, then why would that being only create inferior beings who could only act in one way, that is in ways that are only good and compliant? Would there really be any love possible in such a universe? It would be like creating a bunch of robots, wouldn’t it?

Billy_T wrote:

NewMexicoRam wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

NewMexicoRam wrote:

I appreciate the comments above.

For me, the evidence for a creating force is obvious in the way so much of nature “fits together.” In other words, nature itself would not exist unless millions of small functions came together at once, that is were designed to fit together. That does not prove anything, but for me it is enough explanation.

I can see that. I felt that way about the universe once I rejected Christianity too. Was “agnostic” about the existence of the Divine, but could never return to a belief in a “personal god” who interceded on our behalf. Too much evil in the world. Too much suffering. Too much inequality, etc. etc. And, far too little rhyme or reason for one person’s journey versus another’s.

So, basically, “deism” seemed to work for me, more or less. At least for another decade or so. But then reading more about evolution, and the way the universe formed, I no longer really saw the need for even “the god of the philosophers,” Spinoza’s god, Jefferson’s, etc. Nature really didn’t need a guiding hand. Evolution took care of that. Plus, the argument that “Well, this all had to come from somewhere. It couldn’t have come from nothing, so there must be a god.” Well, then, where did that god come from, if not nothing?

Infinite regress, etc. etc.

Interesting subject. Way back in the day, it was made even better with a little help from Nature.

;>)

Happy New Year, NMR.

If there is evil, is there not good? What determines our sense of evil and good if our existence is really just a random event? If everything is random, there shouldn’t be an evil or good. It just “is.”

And a grand and wonderful New Year to you Billy.

This is just my own view. In no way do I expect others to follow, etc. etc.

I don’t see “evil” or “good” as separate entities, or gods, or manifestations of gods, or Platonic essences, etc. etc. I see them as things people do to one another, and the perceptions and feelings that engenders. We choose how we define those things. We choose. No one else.

To me, “evil” and “good” come solely from within us, not outside us. And we use those words because we humans constantly feel the need to make sense of things, to order the chaos, the find patterns and structure in what is really a completely indifferent universe. This reality is something we can’t stand, consciously and/or sub-consciously. We can’t stand the idea that the universe wasn’t made for us, and we aren’t the center of it, and there is no purpose to our lives beyond what we create.

It’s all on us. It’s all up to us. All “meaning” comes from us — with regard to the world itself and our place within it and so much more. We are all writers and readers of fiction, when it comes to that. We create new fictions and/or accept the fictions we’ve been taught, primarily because it helps us survive and navigate and manage our way through this world.

The reasons we do need this, the reasons we feel we must, are complex. But I think a great deal of it is genetic, biological. We’re born with these needs. The rest is nurture, socialization, indoctrination, etc. Both/And. Nature and Nurture.

So, again, going back to “evil” and “good,” I think that is just what we call the things humans do to one another, and the reactions to all of that. It all comes from within us, as did all the gods and goddesses, which we alone invented. We alone created “god” in our own image, not the reverse. We alone, of all animal species, as far as we know, feel the need to do this . . .

(More on this later. I don’t want to make this post too long . . .)

___________________________________________________________

If the concept of “good and evil” come within ourselves, how does that negate the existence of a supreme intelligent being, otherwise thought of as God? In your initial response, you indicated that the existence of evil helped you to decide not to follow the Christian experience.

Billy_T wrote:

NewMexicoRam wrote:

I appreciate the comments above.

For me, the evidence for a creating force is obvious in the way so much of nature “fits together.” In other words, nature itself would not exist unless millions of small functions came together at once, that is were designed to fit together. That does not prove anything, but for me it is enough explanation.

I can see that. I felt that way about the universe once I rejected Christianity too. Was “agnostic” about the existence of the Divine, but could never return to a belief in a “personal god” who interceded on our behalf. Too much evil in the world. Too much suffering. Too much inequality, etc. etc. And, far too little rhyme or reason for one person’s journey versus another’s.

So, basically, “deism” seemed to work for me, more or less. At least for another decade or so. But then reading more about evolution, and the way the universe formed, I no longer really saw the need for even “the god of the philosophers,” Spinoza’s god, Jefferson’s, etc. Nature really didn’t need a guiding hand. Evolution took care of that. Plus, the argument that “Well, this all had to come from somewhere. It couldn’t have come from nothing, so there must be a god.” Well, then, where did that god come from, if not nothing?

Infinite regress, etc. etc.

Interesting subject. Way back in the day, it was made even better with a little help from Nature.

;>)

Happy New Year, NMR.

If there is evil, is there not good? What determines our sense of evil and good if our existence is really just a random event? If everything is random, there shouldn’t be an evil or good. It just “is.”

And a grand and wonderful New Year to you Billy.

Using the same logic evident here, I have a question:

Can we conclude that God does not exist?

There’s a lot of indirect evidence that an intelligent force could be behind at least much of what we see and detect, and many people have experienced unexplained occurrences in their lives that are difficult to explain. Other than our minds, we don’t have detectors that can find spiritual particles out there, just the same that no one has developed a way to detect dark matter.

Yet, with the logical comparisons, it seems many people have an easier time accepting the existence of dark matter than the existence of God.

Why is that? What is the logical difference here?