fwtex

The Shough pick is frustrating because it not only was an unnecessary overreach but it likely going to prevent the Saints from picking a possible better quality pick in the near future drafts.

1. The Saints panicked a bid against themselves to use the 40th pick. There were so many other much better players available with immediate day 1 impact that were passed over.

2. Cle played the saints like a banjo. Obviously the saints were worried about Cleveland picks but Cle played this draft like the saints should have.

3. The saints could have traded down to pick up Shough later and add a high pick next year. So in essence they wasted a 2 pick opportunity for Shough.

4. What happens next year if the saints have another top 10 pick and a better QB option is on the board. Will they pass or will they admit they panicked in this draft and take another QB with a 1st rd pick next year?

5. I hate that they let fear drive their pick in a weak QB draft. No way Shough graded out as a franchise QB weighed against all other franchise QB metrics.

6. They could have taken 2 QB picks in later rounds to get the same quality, and have 3 young QBs battles and push each other to win the top spot. Option, options, options. ... and still have the ability to take another franchise quality QB in future drafts if none worked out.

7. The saints could have picked up a young QB with NFL starts that are equal or better than Shough at 2.

Horrible pick. It shows desperation with a big overreach. What team was going to take him??? He is no better than any of the other 5 QBs left on the board.

Intend to agree with the OP as it stands right now. The goal is to put your best 5 on the line and right now that would have Banks at Guard and Penning at Tackle. Penning is too tall guard and it would be a waste to have him on the bench.

With that said, I would be ok trading Penning in the draft and picking up another versatile ol that can play guard and center. Penning may have more value as a training camp trade but then again it may click for him in year 3 and his potential comes through.

Trade value?

quote:

---

This is overly simplistic.

---

It is no more difficult than that. Basic 2+2=4.

Renting has no path to generating personal wealth, homeownership does have a path to personal wealth.

Washington State has gender laws prohibiting discrimination against a.personed expressed gender identity. If, I lived in Washington State and was to file a lawsuit I would use this gender law as the foundation of the lawsuit. My argument would be that if the state recognizes discrimination of gender expression then they should also recognize discrimination of expression of race.

Discrimination laws are foundationally based on race, sex, age, religion, ethnicity. My point is that the state cannot pick and choose which class can be partitioned for discrimination and if they make an exception for one class then all classes should have rights to an exception and be partitioned.

Instead of using race or sex, let's use ethnicity or religion. Can the state institute a monetary consideration for only people of Baptist faith? Can they specifically exclude Baptists and give monetary consideration to all others? No, and it would not even make it to trial. The same can be made for race.

quote:

---

There was no ROI, because it wasn't an investment.

---

What the heck?? Just flat out wrong.

Simple comparison.

Option 1. Buy a house $300k and get a 15 year mortgage. Live in the house and pay it off. In 15 years Owner has $300k + they can get back by selling the house.

Option 2. Rent a house for 15 years. After 15 years, Renter has nothing to sell or leverage for the 15 years of rent paid. The owner of the rental house greatly appreciates this renter paying off the house for them. Edit: If you don't think you are paying taxes and interest in your rent payments then you just don't know how investment properties work.

quote:

---

Illinois pastor says: "Jesus was undocumented."

---

Yea, and crucifying people on a cross until they died was acceptable. Should we revert back to every social norm at the time?

This appears to be the liberal media new talking points, to blame conservatives for the lack of trust for MSM. I saw another article yesterday with Stephanie Ruel making the same argument. Saw some others last week floating it out as well.

I am waiting for the Democrats to open an investigation for whether Vance has anything to do with the Popes death.