• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Fresh8686


    13 minutes ago, megared said:


    You used the word "demand".  To me, that implies a level of action.  


    My standards around this team center on winning, **** at least being competitive.  Asking a billionaire to be guided by ethics is like expecting athletes to be role models for my kids.  Out of their operating scope. 



    But do you watch games?  And you're obviously corresponding on the team's official message board, something that increases the value of that asset for them (albeit small, I know).  


    Point was, it wasn't Dan's exceptional moral compass that attracted you to this team.  Considering his track record, it's kind of ironic to place him on any pedestal in an ethics conversation.  Do you think Dan is somehow more ethical than Bezos?  If so, is it because he's done more ethical things, or is it because he's never had the opportunity Bezos has?  



    Really didn't intend for it to come off as questioning your fanhood. Just throwing out a counter argument to all of the 'grass isn't greener' guys.  Our ceiling under this ownership has been 10 Ws and a wildcard win, in the most ideal of situations.  


    I feel you on the demand word choice. To clarify, that demand intent is limited to my level of influence and is not exclusive to the redskins. I have more influence in my company than I do with the redskins obviously.

    Most forums cost more money than they make, so posting here doesn't benefit them and revenue for aired games are shared across all teams, so even switching my allegiance to a different team doesn't change that equation. Plus, I watch the game on DVR and fast-forward through the commercials, so not much given there either.

    Again, I hate Dan and consider him a cancer. He is on no pedestal for me. I want better and I would prefer to have someone who is both capable and ethical.


    10 minutes ago, bowhunter said:

    I'm assuming that you are homeless and donate 85% of your income to a charitable organization. And therefore are entitled to tell someone else how much money they should make/keep.


    What kind of nonsense is this?

    So what, we have to be perfect in order to gain the ability to hold others accountable? That's a dumb ass way to look at life. Do you aspire to anything? Do you have any standards?

    It doesn't take a saint or an angel to realize, that after a certain point making more money is not the absolute goal, the absolute goal is making the world better for yourself and others. I'd say that's a natural evolution of the golden rule. Treat other's how you'd like to be treated, which can also extend to protect and work for others, in the way that you'd like to be protected and worked for yourself.

    How ****ing hard is this?

    I mean come one, didn't y'all learn how to share in kindergarten?



  2. 1 minute ago, SkinsFTW said:


    So you are saying that you'd invest your last 100 dollars on an investment that is going to lose you money because at least they paid for medical insurance for workers that work twice a week?


    You wouldn't just find another investment that will make you money?


    What would be the point? Losing money for charity?


    No that's not an applicable example, because your introducing extreme levels of scarcity with the "last 100 dollars bit". Bezos isn't dealing with any kind of scarcity like that.


    If I was already making way more money than I needed and I faced a decision of either make 35% profit off of company X from my overall portfoli, while getting rid of medical insurance for part-time workers, or make 25% profit and keep the insurance, I would choose the latter.

    It's about at what point or threshold should your intent change from being all about making money, to bi-furcating that intent so it also includes making the world a better place?

  3. 38 minutes ago, megared said:


    Doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't be a fan of this team.  There's other teams out there that treat their players better.  That wasn't criteria, or a condition of your fandom.  Admit it.  


    You're holding Bezos to a standard you aren't enforcing for Dan.  


    First of all you don't get to set my standards or my responses to those who fail those standards, especially when you seem to have none yourself in this specific matter.

    Second, I haven't spent a single cent on the Redskins in the past 30 years and before that I was a kid who grew up rooting for them and didn't weigh such matters.

    Third, I have already said on this forum that while I love the team, the front office is a cancer and like a cancer needs to be treated with the chemotherapy of losing so badly that they can't help but have to face the consequences.

    So yes, it has been a criteria of my fandom and I am enforcing it, because their lack of integrity is having a direct impact on my support, both emotional and financial.


  4. 59 minutes ago, megared said:


    It's been my stance that people with that level of success pretty much act similarly.  I'm not harping on the need to get an 'ethical' billionaire in here, because our major problem isn't primarily ethics.  It's a billionaire without a sense of direction, a vision for the team.  What principles guide the way the Redskins currently operate?  Is it a desire to win?  A desire to build a first class organization?   



    It was 2% of the WF workforce.  I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even make the decision directly himself.  Other than his grand vision of what Whole Foods should be, and the decision to buy them, I doubt he's setting HR policies, and digging into the weeds of minutiae.  I'd imagine he'd be much more worried about the trillion dollar company versus the policies at the one he paid $13 B for (exact reason why he'd be a perfect fit for the Redskins).  Blame him, if that's what you want to do, he is the guy in charge.  


    IMO, It's just a reason for people to dislike him.  In order to be able to provide a minimum wage of $15/hour, WF execs/Bezos/whoever decided to discontinue production based bonuses (the reason people were peeing in bottles) and the insurance for PT employees working less than 20 hours/week.  He didn't owe them health insurance.  That isn't an industry standard.  It's no more evil than any other company increasing health care premiums (which is pretty much an annual occurrence, everywhere).  Why don't those companies eat the additional costs? 



    That's what billionaires do, and in most cases how they amass their wealth.  It's a given.  And it's not exclusive to Bezos.   At the end of the day, his top priority is his responsibility to his shareholders to maximize profits.  No one wants to hear about benevolence in the boardroom lol.  


    Thanks for the response. I guess where we differ can be summed up by your last line. I not only want to hear and see benevolence/character in the boardroom, I demand it. It needs to be a requirement and it is unacceptable to me, that people waste their time turning into ****heads in some faustian bargain to amass extreme amounts of wealth and power.

    I don't accept that "that's what billionaires do". **** them for behaving in this way. And lack of ethics is always a problem in my book.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  5. 1 minute ago, Warhead36 said:

    I mean I'm hoping the situation with Chase at OSU right now scares some teams from the top off.


    Ah ok, I doubt it will scare anybody off since it was a loan from a non-agent and he paid it back I think.

  6. 4 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

    Best case scenario: we pick #2 and a QB needy team is at #4 and offers us a bounty to move up. We slide down to 4 and take Chase Young.


    How does that work? Won't whoever is picking at #3 take Chase before our turn?

  7. 15 hours ago, megared said:


    It's a false narrative.  It's like me complaining about my employer because they don't offer 10%+ 401K matching, like the 'olden days'.  His goal was to transform the grocery store business model.  Inheriting inefficiencies that aren't cost sensible don't help with that objective.  That in of itself doesn't make him evil.  You can call it heartless..but again I'm not of the expectation that Bezos' wealth (which isn't from Whole Foods) should dictate his business decisions.  He had a particular purpose in mind for acquiring the company.  



    But he's still considered one of the worst owners in the NBA.  He did the same thing with Grunsfield, that we're now going through with Allen.  No thanks on that.   


    Isn't being heartless, pretty much in the same category as being evil? It sure as **** isn't in any good category. I don't remember any Saint Heartless kind of dudes up for canonization.

    Now with that said, I am not coming from the place of labeling anyone as absolutely good or evil. I'm talking more about degrees of good and evil actions and that action that @Renegade7 brought up is way more on the evil side of the line than the good side and it shouldn't just be written off as a false narrative.

    Bezos is greedy and selfish and would rather continue to make more money for himself than take a lesser portion while helping others do better. That doesn't make him wholly evil, but it does shift his axis or internal mixture to more of an evil degree. Some people get angry at that characterization, but that's because society hasn't developed and agreed upon a proper response to that level of over-abundance, because we value attaining over-abundance more than sharing with others. In fact we in this county see social pressure pushing for sharing as a violation of personal freedom.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1

  8. 9 hours ago, skins island connection said:


     There's a difference between being sensitive and being defensive.

    I'm defensive in protecting the name, its the sensitive crowd, mostly lawyers and non-native American people crying crocodile tears over a name, mostly for their 5 minutes of fame and their ability to stand in front of a mirror and say " yes, I made a difference".  These people are easy to pick out, they're the ones demanding that countries save their forests, as they stand there protesting with wooden signs.

     I'd prefer to see them stay in the DC area; I could take them moving to another city, but not in a foreign country. The NFL's pipe dream of an NFL franchise being in London has so many negative implications, but they're blinded by the color of green; so ready to take a chance on turning their backs on their actual logo, which BTW is NFL, which stands for National Football League. Will they change that to the World Football League? I doubt it. 


    Yes, there is a difference between sensitive and defensive, but despite that difference they are tethered together, especially when a challenge is made. In those cases sensitivity precedes defensiveness, but again both are present. If you're not sensitive to a thing, then someone challenging it doesn't bring about a reaction of defensiveness. It's like someone talking trash about the Washington wizards, it would mean jack **** to me because I don't watch basketball and my care feelings have a dull to null connection with it.

    Why are you demonizing people who have a problem with the name? It's interesting that you paint them with this extreme brush that characterizes their motivations as being anything but taking genuine issue with the name. You're basically saying that the majority of people who have an issue with the name are liars and hypocrites, seeking validation rather than trying to change what they see as a wrong. 

    You do realize that that is a self-defense mechanism to ease cognitive dissonance right? That is not an accurate assessment of that group/movement.


    Personally, I've came around on the name and would rather it be changed. Partly because my wife is part native American and doesn't like it, but mostly because I ran the thought exercise of what it would look like to have other teams called the white skins, the black skins, etc. and it just sounds primitive and ****ing dumb. Straight up, redskins is a dumb ****ing name when you really think about it. It's a captain obvious ass name and we can do better.

    I'm cool with just being called the Washington Warriors and moving on with it.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    • Confused 1

  9. 11 hours ago, skins island connection said:

    If Bezos buys the team, you can certainly count on the 'Redskins' name disappearing.

    He likes to run with the 'sensitive' crowd, and will immediately move to change the name, and that's not something I can support.

    The only hope is the league disagrees with a name change but I seriously doubt that will happen.


    In a sense, aren't you also in the "sensitive" crowd when it comes to the actual change of the name? As in your sensitive to the point where you will be upset if the name is changed and it will affect your level of support?

    Everybody is sensitive, we're just sensitive to different things and we endlesslessly have hypocritical, non-self-aware conversations where we berate each other for the things others are sensitive to, but we are not, and then go on the defensive to the things we are sensitive about, but others are not.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  10. I don't know exactly where to put this, but I thought it was interesting if true



    For example, one source told The Athletic the pro personnel department now has more say than previously under Gruden. This includes choosing street free agents for workouts, choosing which players to sign for the practice squad and the 53-man roster.


  11. @tshile


    I actually agree that most of these you bring up as aggravating are problems or more specifically over-reaches that can sometimes breach past the point of prejudice.

    However, not all of the Left behaves in this way, at least not in real life (and some conservatives in real life also don't behave in this way).

    Many of our social issues come from exploitation and entitlement that arises from a culture that is mainly dominated by white males (but not exclusive to them).

    Sympathy and understanding is in short supply for many entitled white maies. because self-awareness, self-responsibility, and self-restraint to the point of recognizing historical levels of imbalance and being better than those who came before, eludes them. However, there is empathy to be found for white males who are not enjoying financial privilege, rather than allow them to fall into an empathetic blindspot that occurs when we judge all white males as a monolith.


    Most of the privilege and power dynamics white males enjoy have been baked into our systems and culture to the point, where they fail to account for how it helps their lives and that blindness further promotes an attitude "boo-hoo go cry some more and pull yourself up by your boot-straps" that they put on others.


    Understanding and seeing people based on the content of their character is a human problem and biologically speaking, partly an energy conservation problem. It's faster and takes less mental energy to let our brains fall into over-simplified heuristics/mental short-cuts, especially when we're irritated by others or dealing with an adversarial "other". People on both sides lack the mental and emotional discipline to deal with identity politics in a way that doesn't corrupt the conversation with these over-reaches and over-simplification of a given group. Which leads to antagonism and polarization, which further devolves conversation into more simplified and over-generalized terms that further antagonizes and polarizes people. It's an energetic circling of the drain, a negative feedback loop of communicative corruption through over-simplification and the death of nuance for monolithic, absolutist frames of mental reference.

    So yea, I agree. On the whole identity politics as currently applied, by most of the people in most groups, ****ing sucks.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1

  12. 12 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:


    Exactly this. Dems can tie their hands behind their back and light themselves on fire protesting partisan gerrymandering, but GOP is going to point and laugh and win elections while they do it. 


    Or Dems can be as aggressive as they can to beat the GOP at their own game, and who knows maybe turn the elimination of partisan gerrymandering into a bipartisan position. 


    Yea and in between those is a goldilocks zone, that allows you to still be effective while maintaining some semblance of integrity.


    We need to thread that needle.

  13. How can you say racism disgusts you, when you came into this thread and the first thing you did was place the primary blame on the party with kids and not the openly racist person whose reason for complaint was that he didn't want to sit next to black people?

    I don't care about your skin color, I'm more concerned with your brain wiring.


    • Like 3

  14. In case people have forgotten how important this election is for Virginia. Get out there and Vote Blue. We can't let the Republicans have control of the redistricting process again. We just finally got the maps changed from the racial gerrymandering they did last time.



    Both national parties are closely watching the outcome in Virginia, the only state in the country where the legislature could change hands, for clues about the 2020 presidential contest. An unprecedented amount of cash has flooded the commonwealth, which has no limits on campaign donations.

    All 140 seats in the General Assembly are on the ballot, but much of the battle is focused on suburban districts in Northern Virginia, Richmond and Hampton Roads.

    Republicans are defending thin majorities of 20-19 in the state Senate and 51-48 in the House of Delegates, with one vacancy in each chamber. If Democrats can take control, they could consolidate power for the first time in 26 years and work with Gov. Ralph Northam to enact legislation long blocked by Republicans.

    Those include gun control, protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation, a higher minimum wage and passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. As the only former Confederate state that went for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and with its urban and suburban areas becoming increasingly diverse, Virginia is seen by Democrats as an important place to plant the flag against Trump’s Republican Party.

    What’s more, whoever controls the General Assembly will oversee redistricting after next year’s Census — influencing politics for a decade to come.


    • Like 3

  15. 4 hours ago, carex said:

    has Herbert dropped?  I thought he was going to be the second best QB after Tua?


    Also, I see numerous people on here talking down all the major OL players that are supposed to be in this historic class.  That may be legitimate or it may be a way to justify not going OL but if true it does increase Trent's value

    Next year will be a better year for O-Line. The top two OL this year are Andrew Thomas and Tristan Wirfs and they haven't been dominating to the point where a team is comfortable picking them in the top 3 or maybe top 5.  Also,  a lot of the OL people are talking about are juniors and some of them might decide to wait till next year to declare for the draft (Wirfs might even be one of these according to some).



    And if we re-sign Kerrigan, I highly doubt we'll pick Chase Young. Best hope in that case, is if they pass on him, they at least trade down and accumulate picks. I would love to get Chase, but I'm trying not to keep my hopes up with this dumbass franchise.

  16. Does it make sense to use decision making in the red zone as a tool to help project a qb’s ability to make that jump to game speed in the nfl (and maybe to a lesser extent other positions)?


    Space is tighter, things are faster and my instinct is that how a guy handles that, how much complexity, how much spontaneity, they can manage in order to make a play seems like something that would predict success or failure at nfl game speed. Do they keep their head and execute or do they panic or tunnel vision onto their first read?


    I'm not saying to only look at this or make it the prime determining factor, but I’m wondering if it makes sense to be a part of the mixture when it comes to evaluation?



    • Like 1

  17. Yea this world is brutal. It rips my heart apart on a daily basis and laughs at me for being too broken and powerless to do much of anything about it. 


    Only way to win against that is to take it with eyes open and not give up my heart and my care. To fight locally and build what better things I can. We just need more people to do the same so the machine of all of us put together is a match for the machines built by greed, avarice, and takers. 

    • Like 1

  18. Eventually we are going to have to go to war with these people or else these camps and practices will spread. That's how cancer works. If you don't deal with it, it will escalate and germinate. 



    Tears stream down Sauytbay’s face when she tells the grimmest story from her time in the camp. “One day, the police told us they were going to check to see whether our reeducation was succeeding, whether we were developing properly. They took 200 inmates outside, men and women, and told one of the women to confess her sins. She stood before us and declared that she had been a bad person, but now that she had learned Chinese she had become a better person. When she was done speaking, the policemen ordered her to disrobe and simply raped her one after the other, in front of everyone. While they were raping her they checked to see how we were reacting. People who turned their head or closed their eyes, and those who looked angry or shocked, were taken away and we never saw them again. It was awful. I will never forget the feeling of helplessness, of not being able to help her. After that happened, it was hard for me to sleep at night.”

    Somewhere in China, this is happening to people right now. And no one is doing anything at all to stop it.

    • Sad 1

  19. On 10/31/2019 at 4:06 PM, Spaceman Spiff said:

    Trump obsession here is at an all time high, which is saying something.  Not sure how some of you are going to fill the void if he doesn't get re-elected next year.  Might have some serious withdrawl issues.  


    This is more privileged, disconnected, apathetic bull****.

    Have you ever been in pain? When your in pain, your brain won't let you focus on other things and ignore it.

    We can't wait to not be in pain. To not have to watch everything this piece of **** mother****er is doing to our country. To not have to watch rape survivors being triggered by this **** head every single day. To have every single day be a reminder that cowardice and apathy is the rule rather than the exception. To see kids and adults dealing with existential pain because their future, their world, is soon to topple, but the people in power not only don't give a ****, they are actively making it worse and mocking you about it in the process.

    For people who care, for people who want more, who feel, this isn't obsession or a drug, this is pain. And people who fail to understand this also fail to see how much of an ass they are making of themselves to the people who do care.

    This is about way more than the petty bull****, that people who don't care fill their lives with.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 3

  20. YWhatever you think about Trent in this situation, it's clear that Bruce Allen made what was a bad situation much worse. He needlessly antagonized Trent and turned this into a vindictive power struggle.


    Bruce Allen is the worst kind of negotiator. He doesn't actually have skill to carry out a faithful give and take. The only thing he seems capable of doing is trying to create short-term leverage through adversarial means which leaves a bad taste in every ones mouth.

    He's just a dude who tries to make his bones by beating up on the little guys he can leverage and being embarrassed by the bigger players and other teams who aren't pressed to have to desperately deal with him.

    • Like 4

  21. I don't know if people have talked about or thought about this yet, but if impeachment doesn't get him removed, it will ignite the democratic base. They'll be angry as **** watching republican senators vote against all the evidence to protect this walking wrinkly ball sac toned, weakling of a man.

    I doubt it will ignite the republican base all that much, beyond what it already is. Not with this kind of case, since it's not as easily shifted into a culture war dynamic with it's foreign policy and abuse of power context. Plus, latest polling has 40% of Repbulican's saying that Trump does not make them feel "excited" which does not bode well for turn-out. This can change, but whatever change has to be factored into the already poor showings he is slated to have with minorities and suburban women and the college educated.

    • Like 1

  22. 12 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

    Sewell and Cosmi would be the best OLs in this year's class IMO.  Next year's top five is going to be nasty with those two, Lawrence, and Surtain drawing consideration.


    I need to watch more of Cosmi, he's so athletic, but hopefully will gain some more anchor strength as he develops. I've just watched him a bit against LSU. He held up well for the most part against guys like Chaison or whatever. Didn't see him get beaten by much, other than a bullrush in the 2nd quarter which was just a pressure and not a sack. He lunges a bit at the iine and needs to keep his head up, but I love his attitude and this was only the second game of the year. 

    Oregon will be even more fun to watch next year if the younger Sewell commits to play for them.



    • Like 1
    • Sad 1