buddha

we cant even get the puck. outshot 20-4 so far.

i figured that was assumed.

yes, but what you do SHOWS what that destiny truly is! calvin was a weird sob.

zadina gets a free shot from the slot off the face off and....misses the net.

i dont buy it.

america has the harshest form of calvinist protestantism, lol. whatever your condition may be, it is up to you to get out of it and it is your individual responsibility to get out of it. that thinking has pros and cons. we choose to live with the cons.

i dont think democrats are "weak on crime" either. i do think a more traditional method of dealing with crime (more police, more arrests, more surveillance of communities where the crime occurs) would lead to a reduction in crime, but the side effects from that wouldnt be tolerable to me. as in, i think it would lead to more innocent people being harassed and incarcerated.

"red states are poorer" has a lot more to do with history (southern agricultural states) than current economic or educational policies. texas has the same economic and low educational state funding as other states and is booming. florida too. crime is mostly a local problem, imo. why certain areas have more crime than others has to do with local poverty, drug, and gang issues. i assume that's why a place like chicago has more murders than new york and LA combined (money and local gang policies) while a place like st. louis and new orleans have more per capita than chicago (much poorer with a longer sustained tradition of racism).

so i ask you again: what is your point in bringing uo the red state/blue state thing? are you trying to make a point about gun laws? about general safety? about crime? what is the point? or are you just trolling archie like usual?

o/u on panther goals? 6?

wait a second...you mean there might be a little more nuance to the issue than red state/blue state? lol.

so what is the point you are trying to make? are you saying democrats are better at controlling violent crime than republicans? also, you switched from violent crime to murder rate, but who is counting?

i would not say the rest of the democratic party doesnt care about the far left, did you watch the democratic presidential debates when the candidates fell all over themselves to take the furthest left position as possible, especially on issues that had a tangential relationship to race? now, i would agree with what i think is your general premise: the majority democratic voter rejected that view in a presidential election. on a local level, many of the politicians on the left who espoused "defund the police" rhetoric (which is really police reform rhetoric) won local elections.

i'll remember this argument the next time you fight with chas about the murder rate in chicago, lol. it's almost like you change your position depending on who you are arguing with....🤔 what is the point you are trying to make about red states/blue states? are you trying to say that democrats are better at dealing with violent crime than republicans?

bossy was probably the first hockey player name i remember. i remember the sports illustrated cover with him on it and i remember them winning all those cups in a row and i remember being mad at them for beating wayne gretzky (everyone liked gretzky back then). oh, i do remember hating billy smith.

wait a second....so youre saying spending $28 million a year on a center who does nothing but rebound isnt conducive to team building success????

the democratic party has made many sensible legislative push backs against things like oversentencing, harsh sentencing, police misconduct, the availability of guns, and racial profiling. there are necessary corrections that need to be made in how the american state policies its citizens. but there are consequences to many of those things, both politically and practically. politically, youre going to be on the hook when crime increases. the other party will blame your policies for it because you are "soft on crime." practically, you are likely to see an increase in crime because your policies are short term fixes to some problems (oversentencing) and not fixes to long term problems (jobs, poverty, illegal drug trade, retraining and incorporating ex cons back into society with jobs and a means to live). without better solutions to the long term problems, all you are doing is releasing criminals with no prospects back into society and some of them will go back to crime. so the crime rate goes up. the democrats should know that is coming. unfortunately, they will likely move back on many of their previous efforts because of it.

the far left of the democratic party has called for defunding the police. the calls were very loud during the riots after george floyd's death. after the surge in crime in many areas that followed those riots, the calls arent so loud anymore. in fact, since crime is now the republicans #1 issue, the democrats are scaling back their "see how many prisoners we can let go" rhetoric and jumping back into the "see all the people we arrest" rhetoric. that's what's happening here in chicago. i imagine its happening other places too. ive seen it in san francisco of all places.

all the "big crime" is in red states is not true. violent crime in almost every state is concentrated in its larger cities. crime is concentrated in large cities for a number of reasons. those larger cities tend to be run exclusively by democrats. but you know this and are just being argumentative. (and in 2020 michigan had a higher murder rate and violent crime rate than oklahoma)

all the big crime is in "blue" run cities, so im not sure why you're banging this drum so much. regardless, the democrats are tarred with the "anti-cop" rhetoric of their most left wing members, which is a boon to republicans everywhere.

that's a little misleading considering the most violent places in those red states are in blue cities like memphis, st louis, new orleans, etc.

legally it will be looked at from a "reasonable officer's" point of view. whatever that means, lol. but i tell you what, it really looks bad for the officer, imo. you couldnt pay me enough to be a cop.

not even the bears are dumb enough to make that trade. the bears have punted on next season. theyre getting big cap numbers off their books and retooling for 2023. theyve still made some dumb bears decisions that will cost them comp picks next year, but there is no way on god's green earth theyre giving up a potential top 10 pick next year to get pick 32 this year.

the best pff mock draft was the one bonghit did (i think it was bonghit) where he picked a tight end in every round and pff gave him an A.

i still think players in their prime want to go where the money is and where they feel comfortable. like kwahi. he's a weird cat, but he did not want to play with lebron. did anyone really want to go to cleveland when he was there? love maybe? guys at the end of their ropes want to ring chase and will go wherever, but your big free agents are going to go get paid i think. i dont think thats happening in milwaukee.