• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      We’re still doing this?  Absolutely!  Despite all the compelling reasons to just let everyone go home and enjoy and extended offseason, this is not an option.  The games must be played, and therefore we the long-suffering fans will feel compelled to watch.  Even games no reasonable football fan would choose to watch like, for example, today’s Redskins Jets game.   

      Today’s convergence of sadness features the 30th ranked scoring offense (Jets 14.4 ppg) versus the 32nd (Redskins 12.0 ppg).  The first team to 15 wins!  With no playoff aspirations the compelling story lines for this game are largely limited to watching young players (hopefully) develop.  Dwayne Haskins gets his first home start and Derrius Guice is back from injury.   
       
      My, reasonable, goals for today’s game:  
      1- Score a touchdown 
      2- Score more than 17 points.   
      3- Haskins throws for 200 yards or more with no interceptions  
      4- Guice runs the ball at least 10 times and finishes at 3.5 yards per carry and healthy.  
       
      Hoping for a win at this point feels like setting myself up for disappointment, so I’m happy to settle for an entertaining loss.  
       
      Special thanks to @pez for some excellent Guinness beef stew.  If you absolutely have to stand in a frozen parking lot at 9am, the best place to do it is at the Extremeskins Tailgate with Pez and @Huly.  Great fans, great people. 
       
      The Redskins have declared for the following players as inactive: 
      Paul Richardson  
      Colt McCoy 
      Deshazor Everett 
      Chris Thompson  
      Ross Pierschbacher 
      Vernon Davis  
      Tim Settle  
       
      The Jets declared the following players as inactive  
      Nate Hairston  
      Darryl Roberts  
      Paul Worrilow 
      Matthias Farley  
      CJ Mosley  
      Jordan Willis  
      Leo Koloamatangi 
       
      1st Quarter - Redskins 0 - 6 Jets
      If you wanted to sit in the cold and watch a football game with some Jets fans at FedEx, but were worried that there were not enough seats available, I have good news.  There’s plenty of space available, so come on down and prove you’re a real fan by sitting though this in person.
       
      Jets dominated the 1st quarter even though they only scored 6 points.  The reason being that Washington managed only 13 yards of offense and a single first down.  
       
      Question: Is it still a check down pass if the QB never looks at anyone else?
       
      2nd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      The Jets have achieved an insurmountable 13 point lead early in the 2nd quarter.  All hope is lost.

      Is there a more perfect example of the Redskins offense than their first scoring drive in the 2nd quarter?  Interception gives the Redskins the ball on the Jets 16 yard line.  They proceed to march 10 yards backwards before kicking a field goal from the Jets 26.  It's perfect.  Two or three more field goals we can call it a day. 

      The Jets score again and if feels like they are are just piling on at this point.  Three touchdowns in the first half for them, just three points for the redskins.  Our streak of no touchdowns has now extended to 15 quarters. 
       
      3rd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      There is a spider slowly descending from the ceiling in the press box and it's the most interesting thing that's happened during the third quarter of this game. 
       
      I have decided to allow the spider to live, provided it does not touch me.  I'm off to get some more caffeine. 

      4th Quarter - Redskins 17 - 34 Jets
      The first wave of Redskins fans, the few that are here, started streaming towards the exits after that 4th Jets touchdown.  As if the Jets didn't have this game wrapped up in the 2nd quarter. 
       
      Jet have now more than doubled their average points per game and have matched their season high of 34 points (and they missed two field goals in this game). 
       
      TOUCHDOWN REDSKINS!  THE DROUGHT IT OVER!  Guice took a short pass from Haskins  all the way to the house.  2 point conversion is successful on a pass from Haskins to Quinn. 
       
      The Redskins score another touchdown!  This feels like an embarrassment of riches, even if we are still certain to lose this game. 
       
      End of Game.
       
      Let's review those reasonable goals I mentioned earlier:
       
      1- Success.
      2- Close enough, I'm counting it
      3- Haskins did throw for over 200, but unfortunately did have an interception. 
      4- Guice was not given the opportunity to run the ball ten times today.  He did however score on a 45 yard TD pass and finish the game healthy.  I'll take it.
       
      Even though the Redskins lost, it was good to see the offense show some faint signs of life and end the streak of games without a TD.  The team looked competitive for much of the second half, and perhaps they could have made this a fun game if they carried that same energy throughout.  It was good to see Guice and Mclaurin show out today.  I think both of them have a future with this team that I look forward to seeing. 

       
       

       
       
       
       
       
Rdskns2000

Presidential Election :11/3/2020- Trump the Impeached vs Superplanner Lizzie, Shake Your Booty Pete & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hersh said:

 

I’m not telling y’all to let it go. Be mad all you want. If y’all want to call for Biden to drop out, have at it. If he’s the nominee, don’t vote for him. 

I understand why people are mad about his comments. If you think his remarks make him worse than Trump, okay. 

 

I already said I'd vote for biden if he was the nominee, we cool, but this is going nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

And he told us he wasn’t a president for black People.

Uh, no he didn’t. Unless you mean exclusively for black people.

 

Uncle Tom Obama... I mean, really. Give me a ****ing break. You’re just saying **** now which if I’m being honest, is a pretty common theme with you.

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

This is pandering for Latino votes and is an awful policy position.

Yeah, some people should be deported. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Uh, no he didn’t. Unless you mean exclusively for black people.

 

Uncle Tom Obama... I mean, really. Give me a ****ing break. You’re just saying **** now which if I’m being honest, is a pretty common theme with you.

I didn’t call Obama that nor was suggesting he was. My post is solely about the Democratic party’s treatment of black issues. It’s been put on the back since the end of the Civil Right’s movement with Raygun. The party has asked black voters to vote against an increasingly racist party instead of doing anything tangible to uplift the black community.

 

Obama’s presidency saw black wealth decline by nearly 2/3rds during his presidency.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/12/07/destruction-of-black-wealth-during-the-obama-presidency/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I didn’t call Obama that nor was suggesting he was. My post is solely about the Democratic party’s treatment of black issues. It’s been put on the back since the end of the Civil Right’s movement with Raygun. The party has asked black voters to vote against an increasingly racist party instead of doing anything tangible to uplift the black community.

 

Obama’s presidency saw black wealth decline by nearly 2/3rds during his presidency.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/12/07/destruction-of-black-wealth-during-the-obama-presidency/

 

Name me a politician in the history of human race capable of passing New Deal era programs in 2008-2016 in the United States without resorting to totalitarianism.  Then I'll start throwing stones at Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

OK, can we please end the urination battle now? 

 

No. .....the Dem primary must continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, twa said:

No. .....the Dem primary must continue.

Urination battle... I figured it was to see which teen prostitute would be saying to herself, "my god, look what's on top of me" when the pres visits Russia next year.

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Name me a politician in the history of human race capable of passing New Deal era programs in 2008-2016 in the United States without resorting to totalitarianism.  Then I'll start throwing stones at Obama.

See you’re not following things again.

 

My post was critical of the Democratic Party since the end of the Civil Rights Movement. That includes Obama but isn’t solely him. 

 

Saying that, the massive loss of black wealth happened under his watch.

 

Lastly, the Democrats have had no desire to pass New Deal level policies since Reagan. That includes Vice President Biden. FFS, Obama offered to gut Social Security to appease the GOP. Run-of-the mill Republicans have been able to pass policies that have eradicated the New Deal and Civil Rights Movement, with help of many Democrats. This is why we must vote with policy in mind even though #resist is convinced the world will be good once Trump is out.

 

This is why a lot of progressives are excited over Sanders and Warren, and to an extent Yang. And why many don’t want a Biden nomination .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

See you’re not following things again.

 

 

Yeah, my bad.  I meant to address whoever posted this thing

 

Quote

Obama’s presidency saw black wealth decline by nearly 2/3rds during his presidency.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/12/07/destruction-of-black-wealth-during-the-obama-presidency/

 

Cause that paper argues that what would have prevented destruction of Black wealth after the financial crisis would've been New Deal era initiative of government buying up bad mortgages and refinancing them on favorable terms.  I'm sure if Obama had endless supply of unicorns and sunshines, he would have handed them out like candy too. 

 

Yeah, sorry for not paying attention.  I was calling the person who posted that link naive and that argument totally without merit.  Sorry if that wasn't you.

Edited by bearrock
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bearrock said:

Yeah, my bad.  I meant to address whoever posted this thing

Yeah, and am I missing something or is the massive loss of black wealth referenced in that article something that affected Americans across the board, irregardless of race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bearrock said:

I'm sure if Obama had endless supply of unicorns and sunshines, he would have handed them out like candy too. 

Yeah, the problem is he did have this endless supply of unicorns and sunshines and candies. He just handed it to the banks and bad actors who created the problems and that lead to more problems.

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5
Quote

Those incentives were worsened by the lax treatment of servicers by both the Treasury Department and the Department of Justice. Given the adverse incentives, some servicers tricked people into foreclosure, according to several investigations and sworn testimony from Bank of America whistleblowers. By repeatedly “losing” people’s paperwork, falsely telling them relief was imminent, or other such tricks, the servicer could string the homeowner along, squeezing out a last few payments before foreclosing on them. Others simply botched the paperwork through incompetence, with the same effect.


Much of that behavior was illegal, and violated the administration’s stated hamp rules. But not only did the Department of Justice decline to thoroughly investigate servicer abuses, the Treasury Department did not permanently claw back a single one of its payments to abusive servicers that had violated its rules...

 

Why not? Neil Barofsky, the bailout inspector general, later testified that protecting the banks was the actual goal. The administration’s aim was to “foam the runway” for the banks, as Barofsky witnessed Tim Geithner tell Elizabeth Warren. HAMP failed, in other words, because it was not designed to help homeowners.

 

As a result, in many cases HAMP actively enabled foreclosure. Its re-default rate — the fraction of people who got a modification and later defaulted out of the program — was 22 percent as of 2013. Only about $15 billion of the original $75 billion appropriation was spent by mid-2016.

 

The other thing is Obama had control of the house and senate his first two years and didn't create teh programs that was needed. 

2 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Yeah, and am I missing something or is the massive loss of black wealth referenced in that article something that affected Americans across the board, irregardless of race?

it affected black households more because black wealth was tied into homeownership more than any other group, and black people were playing catch up due to stuff like slavery, redlining, etc.

 

The Dems didn't do anything to alleviate the matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to your paper, it affected Latinos worse.

 

Its a pretty stupid article anyway. Pretty clearly dude started with his conclusion and then did some amazing statistical and literal gymnastics to get there. This is one of my favorite parts...

 

As a result, the percentage of black homeowners who were underwater on their mortgage exploded 20-fold from 2007 to 2013.”

 

2007? They even include a handy graph that shows a monster spike in 2007 which continues into the start of his presidency followed by steady improvements after that.

010AAFA5-02E8-4C65-82E9-38C5A8F08AF4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Yeah, the problem is he did have this endless supply of unicorns and sunshines and candies. He just handed it to the banks and bad actors who created the problems and that lead to more problems.

 

 

The other thing is Obama had control of the house and senate his first two years and didn't create teh programs that was needed. 

 

First, Obama did not have control of both houses for two years (unless you're counting less than filibuster proof 60 as control)

 

https://www.ohio.com/article/20120909/NEWS/309099447

 

Quote

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof “total control.” Republicans held 41 seats.

 

The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)

 

The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

An aside....it was during this time that Obama’s “stimulus” was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn’t have “total control” of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it’s passage.

 

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.

 

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.

 

Kennedy’s empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

 

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. “Total control” of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy’s Massachusetts seat.

 

Some things to unpack here.  TARP (which HAMP was part of) passed during the first window with the help of 3 GOP senators.  If Obama said he would refuse to pass a bailout bill because he wanted a New Deal like program, he would have been (rightly) lambasted by both sides.  If he included government buy back of underwater mortgage in the bailout bill, there was a snowball's chance in hell of the GOP senators and Blue Dog Dems supporting it.  

 

If you want to argue that Obama could have supplemented HAMP with a New Deal type program during the 4 month window, you forget that this was the same Congress that would not even give him a public option in the ACA (which would have been magnitudes less controversial than the federal government outright buying bad debts).  Just simple math shows that Dem's 60 in the Senate included the recently turned Arlen Specter, who never would've voted for such a program.  Especially so, considering that they just recently passed an albatross bailout package a few months ago (a very controversial one at that), even moderate dems would be wailing in private (perhaps in public too) that the president has lost his mind.

 

TL:DR, you're wrong.

Edited by bearrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:
 

 

 

Thats would be a pretty stupid thing for a President to say.  Telling Iran we won’t support a US ally militarily does not make the problem go away or help solve it.  It just weakens the US’s negotiating position and helps Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

Thats would be a pretty stupid thing for a President to say.  Telling Iran we won’t support a US ally militarily does not make the problem go away or help solve it.  It just weakens the US’s negotiating position and helps Iran.

 

Questioning and perhaps going the extra way by discarding our alliance with Saudi Arabia is perfectly fine as a policy position. There is no hard and fast rule that we must support the Saudi's at all costs.

 

We are probably 20 years too late already in evaluating our relationship with the Saudi kingdom.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, visionary said:
 

 

 

 

 

Mayor Pete is right.  Beto’s Call for gun confiscation helps the NRA and opponents of gun reform.  We can wish that wasn’t true, but it’s obviously so.  I also doubt his sincerity in claiming that wide ranging support exists for the federal government confiscating weapons at this point.  No one credible believes that, and Beto doesn’t strike me as a stupid person.  So I’m left believing that he’s just bull****ting to try to drum up some support for a faltering campaign.

 

 

8 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Questioning and perhaps going the extra way by discarding our alliance with Saudi Arabia is perfectly fine as a policy position. There is no hard and fast rule that we must support the Saudi's at all costs.

 

We are probably 20 years too late already in evaluating our relationship with the Saudi kingdom.

 

I disagree because of the timing.  This isn’t happening in a vacuum.  Right now Iran is growing it’s influence in the region and they are a dedicated enemy if the United States.  Policy positions can’t just ignore the reality of what’s actually occurring right now.  Telling Saudi Arabia they’re on their own, publicly, is an irresponsible move diplomatically that harms US interests.

 

i agree with you that the Saudi relationship needs to be re-evaluated.  There are ways to do that significantly more advantageous than attention grabbing tweets.  You’d think we’d all have learned this lesson by now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

Thats would be a pretty stupid thing for a President to say.  Telling Iran we won’t support a US ally militarily does not make the problem go away or help solve it.  It just weakens the US’s negotiating position and helps Iran.

 

I think maybe this is a misinterpretation, but I could be wrong. I don't think he's saying we wouldn't support SA, obviously we do. I think he's saying that the US is going to go to war in place of SA. Regardless though, I think it's in response to POTUS effectively saying he will let SA dictate what we do. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.