Posts posted by Huckleberry
-
-
-
-
-
1 hour ago, GRHorn said:
Ok. So I’m a bit of an expert now. I’ve watched SIX minutes of Milroe’s Hudl film.
I’m in the minority here as a Preston Stone fan. Despite the competition level and the douchiness/daddy issues, I think he’s a complete, polished passer. That said, Milroe is obviously good enough to take if he’s ready to jump on board now. I can definitely see why Herman/Beck would be attracted to his skill set. It sounds like awesome news is coming.
This take keeps getting repeated and makes no sense. Who gives a shit if a 15 year old is a complete polished passer? All that means is that he's closer to his ceiling and the 15 year old whose mechanics need work has more room for improvement.
-
So Western Hills won 15-0 and POLL won 10-0. Setting up a hell of a game tonight in Texas East between them.
POLL still not given up a run in entire playoff. Jeez.
They've given up 7 runs, just none since district.
Go all the way and it could be like when Trumbull, CT won it all. They lost a game in district then blew through the rest of the world. Wonder if those guys who beat them in district think about how they might have been the second best team in the world but just happened to be in the same district as the best.
-
-
12 hours ago, Spider2YBanana said:
I'd be happy with Stone or Milroe, but Stone looks to have the better throwing mechanics, so I'm a little biased. Also he's a 5*, and I love sipping aggy tears.
Anyone know where he may end up if we take Milroe instead?
So when evaluating 16 year old prospects who shouldn't be playing for 4 years or more, you rank them based on whether or not they have already developed the most easily coachable thing? Interesting.
-
-
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:
A few
handlesdays ago, I believe he mentioned the 2018 results were evidence that he was correct and that it was the right's dream scenario. You know, owning the libs by allowing them to retake the house with four colored wimmens.lulz
Sounds about right for his recent "logic." Good news for the Democrats, though, according to TTT logic, they won the 2016 election!
-
-
Edited by Huckleberry
6 minutes ago, TommyGufano said:4.13 shuttle for a dude with his height is strong to quite strong. Respectable vertical as well. A little surprised his athleticism doesn't seem to stand out more on film than it does.
I see plenty of athleticism on his junior film, but it's limited by a lack of decisiveness when the ball is in his hands. He needs to trust his athleticism more and just make a move and go. He hesitates a lot once he has the ball. I really like the fact that he catches the ball softly and easily with his hands even on the dead run.
I do agree he's probably more of a #300 in the nation type of prospect than where he's rated now.
-
10 minutes ago, Sock Monkey said:
I'm cool with either Milroe or Stone. Especially since both should have should be at least 5-6 seasons from starting at Texas, because we better be done with freshman QBs for a long damn time.
That's the issue, though. Stone has already moved around to find playing time in high school. Odds of his doing that in college if he doesn't play his first two seasons are over 90%.
-
-
3 minutes ago, formermav43 said:
In an alternate reality where he voted against tax cuts based on shrinking the deficit, he would be getting excoriated as a hypocrite too. “Rand has to know that spending won’t be cut in the current environment. Claiming that he’ll only support tax cuts if they’re tied to spending cuts is a convenient way to pass the buck. Hope you enjoy your pork, Mr. Small Government Libertarian!”
Its just a question of whatever criticism is useful today.
Still incorrect. The fact of the matter is that Paul doesn't care even a little bit about the deficit. He votes to lower taxes, he votes no on every single appropriations and spending bill, but he absolutely does not care what the impact on the budget deficit is when he's making those votes. He pretends to care, but he doesn't actually care. All he needs to do is be honest. His actual concerns:
Lowering taxes>>>Lowering spending>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe the deficit a little
Heck, just listen to his words. Tax cut bill doesn't cut enough? Oh well, at least it's something. I'll vote for this thing that adds trillions to our debt. We absolutely need to cut taxes by however much I can get. If lowering spending were as important to him as lowering taxes then he would have held the tax cut bill hostage. He didn't. If the deficit were as important to him as lowering taxes he would have voted no on the tax bill. He didn't.
-
His perspective on other issues is fine, I missed that sidebar.
But he failed when he had a chance to make a real difference in the national dialog. The tax cut had 51 yea votes. Yes, Pence would have been the 51st no matter what. How about this?
"I will vote no on the tax bill unless at least equivalent cuts are made to the our spending in the military's budget (including domestic surveillance), non-SS entitlements, and other areas."
Simple. Even that would have only been grandstanding because of the VP's tiebreaker, but he didn't even have enough spine for that.
-
-
Edited by Huckleberry
29 minutes ago, Anastasis said:Or acknowledge his actions to block arms sales to SA, or reeling in the surveillance state, or criminal justice reform, or dialing down military interventions, or....
oh fuck it, he voted for tax reform, none of that shit matters because spending cuts in DC are fantasy and clearly if you vote for tax reform while advocating for lower spending you are a fraud and cannot contribute anything worthy of consideration to the debate on these topics.
What a terrible post.
What do his surveillance state efforts, arms sales efforts, etc. have to do with the discussion of his inaction with respect to the deficit? You are correct that he has done those things, unfortunately for you and Swindle, pointing and yelling squirrel doesn't work around here.
-
3 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:
We should achieve world peace through militarily conquering all who oppose us. Those on the left disagree with my plan and call it an extreme right idea, therefore they must think that achieving world peace is a right wing extremist idea...
Is that how this works?
That post when you don't know how analogies work.
"Hmm, let's see. AOC is attempting to obfuscate the big bad evil big picture (SOCIALISM WILL KILL US ALL I TELL YOU!!!) by pointing out all of the good sounding smaller pieces of the puzzle which individually don't seem bad at all.
Here, I shall post an analogy from the other side of the political perspective where I achieve the good big picture by evil means. Yes, this is perfect. I have compared an evil big picture achieved by taking small good steps with a good big picture achieved by taking small evil steps. I am a genius."
-
8 minutes ago, formermav43 said:
But if you vote against a tax cut without cutting spending, you’ve also sacrificed two of your principles to achieve a third.
You already acknowledged his efforts to cut spending have been fruitless. Your logic dictates he should therefore not act on his other principles, despite them being equally important. He will never cut spending, so he must do nothing.
No, he must admit that he doesn't actually care about the deficit. When discussing his vote for the tax cut his only stated problems with the bill were that it didn't cut enough. He did not mention that spending must be cut even more in order to help pay for the tax cuts. The deficit was not even a concern. He did not attempt to tie the cuts to any reduction in spending anywhere.
-
Just now, formermav43 said:
So if you claim to care about 1) reducing spending, 2) cutting taxes and 3) the deficit as the Reason article opines, you’re just supposed to throw up your hands and say screw it when you can’t muster enough support for 1? What criteria determines that 3 is more important than 2? And if you vote not to cut taxes, how are you not susceptible to the same criticism of inconsistency, given those 3 priorities?
I'm assuming that all three are relatively equally important to someone who claims them as his three principles.
If you vote to cut revenue without decreasing spending then you are sacrificing two of your three principles to achieve the third.
It's also simple logic. If your budget is in a deficit position and you want to tackle all three of those things, reducing spending has to be the first thing to happen. You don't take the lower paying job before you reduce your expenses to get out of debt.
-
Perhaps when you have been in the Senate for 8 years and you've had plenty of time to realize that your efforts to reduce spending, while not wrong at all in and of themselves, have been completely fruitless and a total failure, you shouldn't vote to massively reduce revenue if you claim to care about the deficit.
-
-
That may be true, but I'm only talking high versus low. Look at the strike zone shown on the screen here. An automated strike zone would add a damn foot to the top of that zone. A foot!
Bellinger struck out swinging at a 95mph fastball at the top of the displayed zone. Imagine having to cover another foot vertically.
-
Hahaha
you can't help yourselves
Trump was swept into office as a pushback upon the divisiveness of Harry Reid and Barrack Obama
mid terms turned out perfectly for Trump with these four United States of by God America hating bitches..pushing the party further left and forcing the only Dems with a chance to come along for fear of being labled "racist"
Keep doing you and we will keep Trump ensconsed
You are enabling the very thing that you hate....but the Republicans are "self-unaware".
Snowflake snowflake snowflake
Look at the baby cry
Somebody called racism racist, stop being accurate or I'll keep being racist!
Texas Recruiting Notes 2021
in 🤫$9.95🤫
He got to #218 in the country between his sophomore and junior seasons and finished ranked #766. Obviously futureman is going to futureman, but Lindell Stone definitely dropped like a, um, rock, in the rankings his last two seasons.