I mean, “should someone be punished for attempting to abuse his power” seems like a pretty moral question to me, but regardless, I’d have to disagree pretty hard with your last sentence, as I’d consider Congressman some of the few people who have an ethical obligation to support actions that are almost certainly…

the statistics are literally in this blog

i think this might be the most well-articulated argument against impeachment I’ve read yet.

legit question, because I understand the political reasoning you’re presenting and largely agree with it:

i certainly think that in those situations it would have been a lot harder to argue that “playcalling” is what cost them the game.

If you’re arguing that passing was more likely to lead to a successful outcome, that appears to be statistically incorrect - which is the entire point of all of this. 

Yeah, it appears I replied to the wrong person. My bad :)

The Switch .... Heavy? :P

That’s just, uh, not at all what Shep said. That’s what you (and the author of this blog) want him to have said, but it’s not.

no one is arguing with your correct statement of the events. we’re arguing that to say (in this blog) that Shep called Tucker “repugnant” is flat-out false.

you’re missing the point, though. Despite all of the things you said about the defense, you’re still more likely to be successful running the ball in these situations overall.

this is fun and i’m enjoying it, too, but, Shepherd didn’t call Carlson repugnant. They do plenty of dumb shit over there, you don’t have to embellish. 

to me, this is the only reason to look at the menu, and I try to do it only when I’m expected to choose the restaurant.

if you are added as an authorized user to someone else’s account, that usually counts on your credit report as “your” open line of credit.

your credit score is not measuring your ability to make decisions, wise or unwise. It’s measuring your ability to take on debt and consistently fufill your payment obligations.

what the fuck planet are you on that it’s the President of the United States’ job to fix global inequality

at some point between your original post and your reply to me, your stupidity went from “my own thoughts” to “this is what pro-gun people say.”

It’s hard to fully understand your argument when you change it completely over the course of a handful of replies.

Guns are designed to kill people and are so easy to use I bet even you’d be able to figure it out, so to somehow imply that removing guns won’t reduce the amount of people who die from violence is a completely ridiculous premise, and all the (false) pretentious high-mindedness in the world won’t change that.

you’re kind of a dick, eh? 

It feels like you responded to the wrong comment here, but ARP2 is exactly right. One of the primary goals of this type of buffoonery from Gaetz is the removal of all value from congressional hearings.