Soxbadger

I actually never said any of that. My quote was: I cant predict the future. But what I can say is I never used the word "awful" or the phrases "lucky to survive" or "never before seen awful president." So maybe you were reading another post, maybe you misread what I wrote. But now saying "not much different" is quite different than the "a million times worse" statement you previously made.

Who is whitewashing history? Putting history in its factual context is not whitewashing it, its putting things into context. I never said I have no problems selling weapons/chemical weapons/whatever, I just am saying that Democrats have done their fair share of bad things too. FDR put Japanese in internment camps, war criminal? And many other things. And I think the most important part of your post was "I could care less to have a legitimate conversation with a Republican."

I think that there is some inherent hypocrisy in all of this. If on one hand, I am going to fight that everyone is equal, everyone should be treated the same etc etc, then I think its kind of bullshit to try and say "Oh but you cant wear or do X." I actually was going to post about this when I read the article this morning. If we want to be a nation of immigrants a cultural melting pot etc, then we have to accept that other people may like whatever "our" culture might be. There is a big difference between doing something disrespectfully and doing something because you like it. I dont know, maybe Im just backwards, but I thought the hope of characters like Moana, Elena, Doc McStuffins was to make it so that kids didnt just want to be Elsa/Anna.

Its ideas like this that are going to make it so that nothing changes. Reagan was a million times worse? Bush was responsible for Iraq? How can you expect to have a legitimate conversation with Republicans, if you really believe what you wrote? Im not going to touch the Reagan stuff, because if youre going to make a statement like that, the onus is on you to prove what you said. As for Bush. Last I checked in 2003 congress authorized the Iraq Resolution. Not saying its right or wrong, but its no different than any other conflict that the US has been involved in (outside of WWII.) Bush supported Harriet Miers, so what? He is the President, he can support whoever he wants. The difference is that Bush didnt go and change the rules to get her approved, he didnt undermine our entire system to push through his candidate. He played by the rules. The rules are (for better or for worse) the President nominates a SC candidate. I dont necessarily think Miers is the best candidate, but Bush was well within his authority to do it. Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Again, something I dont believe in. But other people are allowed to have different beliefs. In fact you Bush actually supported civil unions; https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/politics/campaign/bush-says-his-party-is-wrong-to-oppose-gay-civil-unions.html (edit) Well I lost like half the post due to how much I hate these new boards and formatting, but the rest of the post was basically. If you really believe that Bush was a million times worse than Trump, you lose all credibility in the discussion. While I may not agree with Bush/Reagan, I think that there is a difference between someone having a difference opinion and someone trying to blow up the system for their advantage. If we keep sensationalizing the past, it will end poorly for all of us. And we will all have blame. It was more eloquent, but whatever the post is lost.

I cant predict the future. What I can say is that if people keep acting like there is nothing that the other side can do, that they are all bad whatever (and this goes for both sides) then nothing is going to be accomplished. Ive seen some Republican's speak out about Trump. There are good people who are Republicans, sometimes you have to focus on the positive instead of berating them all the time. That just causes people to dig in their heals and defend. Some of them, but not all of them. Trump is a dramatic break from every other Republican president. There is no denying this. A while ago I posted that Trump would be the best thing to ever happen to Bush's legacy, and its true. Because now people are actually seeing what a bad guy is and that is a distinction people need to stop forgetting.

And therein lies the struggle. Social issues many times mean fighting for someone else. Many times it means that you give up your advantages for the better of others. Those are never easy sells. The income part of the equation is difficult because it requires people to better understand economics. "They took our jobs" is catchy, it makes sense. Trying to convince people that more immigrants will mean that eventually their social status will improve is less intuitive. The same can be said about universal health care etc. At the end of the day, we all have to make decisions on the type of person we want to be and what we want to support. That is the gift and the curse of our system. I want to be someone who can say that I did what I could to make things fair. That I didnt try to push my advantages further, that I didnt try and create rules to hurt others and to help myself. That I played the game fair. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few elections. Will the Republican party take back its soul? Or is this who they are now? I really cant tell. I really hope that Republicans stand up and say this type of bullshit cant stand, even if it means that they lose an election cycle or two. Because if they dont, it will only get worse and its going to end poorly for most Americans, irrespective of their race/religion/whatever. Sometimes the captains own crew needs to be the ones to tell the world that the captain is unfit to lead.

I actually think on the video posted Lebron lost his balance when he was trying to avoid running into the other defender. That being said, NBA loves garbage fouls so anyone who isnt flopping is hurting their team.

Vegas isnt perfect, which is exactly why I said that if people are so confident that the Bears will win 6 or more games that they should make some money.

https://www.chatsports.com/nfl/a/vegas-releases-new-post-draft-2018-nfl-win-totals-every-team-38431 Vegas has set the Bears over/under win for Bears at 5.5, so if you think im wrong about 6-7 wins for the Bears, feel free to put a huge bet on that number because 5.5 is lower than what I thought. I figured it would be 6.5, so 5.5 should be easy money for you 2... The Bears are tied for 2nd lowest win total, with Arizona. Cinci/Browns line is 5 wins. So as of today Vegas has the Bears picking between 3-4 in next years draft. Anything could happen and the Bears could go 16-0, but if you really believe that I am so far off with 6-7 win prediction, you could make a killing with the 5.5 under/over.

Belichek's logic is the exact reason I dislike the trade. Look at next years schedule, with the NFC Central being one of the better divisions, the Bears are looking at approximately 6-7 winnable games. Now anything can happen, but right now the teams that they can possibly beat are AZ, TB, Miami, NYJ, Buffalo, NYG and possibly 49ers. The teams that they are unlikely to beat are GB, DET, MIN, SEA, LA, NE. If they beat every bad team, they are 7-9, if they split them they are more like 4-12... The season after this is where you really could envision the Bears making a big leap, which is why next draft I would not have been opposed to trading future picks. But this year the schedule is not super favorable.

Some of the other years the Bears also traded up to lose picks. So basically it was a wash, but it would have been nice to start 1 year with a clean draft slate or maybe even be + some picks. I just dont see the Bears being that good again this year Never heard that any other team were trying to trade for the 49ers pick and the articles from Lynch indicated that the Bears were bidding against themselves. Do you have any source for that? (edit) I guess Lynch said "other" teams were trying, but hard to tell what was offered. And from what I can remember, KC really liked Mahomes.

If it was isolated, it may not be a big deal. But the problem stems from last year trading your 3/4 this year to move up 1 spot for a player who was going to be there at your pick anyway. Now because the Bears didnt have those picks, they were forced to trade more picks to try and bandage their move from last year. Even more frustrating, is that many places rate DJ Clark and James Washington higher. So its not like youre talking about someone who everyone thought was deserving of the pick. Some places even have Deon Cain rated higher, and hes still available.

That trade is exactly why moving down in the 1st like TB would have been amazing for the Bears. They keep trading up, they keep losing future picks. Unlike the Pats they dont trade guys on their roster to accumulate more picks, so the Bears (under Pace) are always starting behind in each draft. Never seen Miller play so i cant really comment, but eventually trading future picks catches up to you. The only way it really makes sense is if youre a team who somehow due to injury/etc was really bad this year and feel next year youll be a playoff team so that 2nd is really like a 3rd etc. But thats not the Bears, that pick could be a top 5-10 pick in the 2nd round, and there are going to be guys with 1st round grades theyll miss out on because they werent willing to be patient. Basically the opposite of what the Bears should be doing.

Hard to argue getting a guy who is rated by most as a 1st round talent and best at their position.

So thinking Colts go RB here. If Tampa passes, think the Bears go Daniels.

Its strange when you put those posts together, because 2/3 guys you mentioned are SS/FS. If the Bears had made the trade TB did, the Bears could have had James + 2 additional second rounders. Fitzpatrick was selected 1 pick before Tampa's and James was selected at 17. It seems like you are now changing the argument to the Bears should have never traded out of the first round, which is entirely different than what most people were suggesting which was to trade down a handful of picks in a draft where 4 of the top 10 players who were picked were never going to be selected by the Bears anyway. And of course everyone can "agree to disagree", but when you say "Is every fan base this disgusting? " in response to Bears fan who thought the Bears should do a Tampa style deal it doesnt leave a lot of room for reasonable people having reasonable differences. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but it is not statistically sound. Your basis is that you believe Smith is so much better than anyone else that the Bears could have taken, and that value could not be offset by other players. There is nothing wrong with that opinion, but dont insult the rest of us by trying to argue that its somehow based on statistics that dont exist.

I dont even mind someone saying "Player X was worth not trading down." But the whole condescension towards anyone who believes in trading down is pretty absurd. Here is an article (not written by stupid Bears fans) that supports the theory of trading down: https://www.vox.com/2014/5/7/5683448/how-nfl-teams-ignore-basic-economics-and-draft-players-irrationally Basically, Soxfan49 is a victim of the "overconfidence effect." Every conceivable statistic supports trading down. That does not mean that every time trading down will work, nor does it mean that 1 player cant be worth more than 5. It just means that over time teams with more picks are more successful at drafting than teams with less picks. Since trading down = more picks, it is generally preferable. But Im just a stupid Bears fan. (wow that formatting was all fucked)

lol You beat me to it.

So by your own math trading 1 first for 1 first and 2 seconds results in a higher chance of getting 1 good player. /shrugs Different people have different beliefs, but as long as Ive been on this board, Ive always been a proponent of accumulating picks/talent in the NFL.

Same here, if the Bears were 1 pick higher theyd have gotten that tampa deal and be sitting really great right now.

No idea why, but I could see it being Sonny Michel.

Yep, if the deal was at all interesting should have moved down.

Hopefully someone loves Rosen.

Is there a link to these figures you forgot to post?

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 10:48 AM) You've been on this board for 13 years and you still have it set at 15 posts per page? Over 15 years and still have it set at 15 posts per page.