Marq

@consequence 1. Tool - Fear Innoculum Tour

The Greatest Concert Tours of All Time: 20. Bob Dylan — Bob Dylan World Tour 1966 19. Pink Floyd — The Dark Side of the Moon Tour 18. Iggy and the Stooges — 1970 Summer Tour 17. Fleetwood Mac — Rumours Tour 16. Kate Bush — The Tour of Life 15. Queen — News of the World Tour 14. Bob Dylan — Rolling Thunder Revue 13. The Jimi Hendrix Experience — First UK Tour 12. Lollapalooza 1992 11. Daft Punk — Alive 2006/2007 10. Grateful Dead — Spring 1977 09. Beyoncé — Renaissance Tour 08. The Who — The Who Tour 1970 07. Taylor Swift — The Eras Tour 06. The Beatles — 1965 US Tour 05. Prince and The Revolution — Purple Rain Tour 04. Madonna — Blond Ambition World Tour 03. Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band — Darkness Tour 02. Michael Jackson — Bad World Tour 01. David Bowie — The Ziggy Stardust Tour consequence.net/list/100-best-…

@allthingsmn Built to beat the Nuggets and nothing more.

The debt is still being paid on the Rudy Gobert trade. The debt is still being paid on the Dillingham trade. And the Wolves are likely going to be pretty limited in options to cash in on Julius Randle and Rudy Gobert. They’ll be lucky to have any takers for Randle. This era’s been a blast…but the odd roster construction and some big bets that didn’t cash made a championship out of reach. It’s time for the pivot but Ant/Jaden/Naz/Ayo is just nowhere near a good enough young core to take down OKC/SAS and they have very few paths to getting pieces that put them in that category. Timmy’s gotta thread a very fine needle.

@vikings129 @fashion_nfl What a stupid take. Be better.

@fashion_nfl Vikings were only runner-up because Latino raider fans don’t work and were on twitter all day

My biggest takeaway from the NFL Primary Logo tournament: If you have the runner-up logo, it should be proudly featured on your uniform.

@benjamincowen Ben spreading his seed like a spring dandelion.

My wife gave birth to our 5th child. Truly, this is wealth

@DamienPetersNBA Blame it on the horses.

Nikola Jokic will now be the overwhelming example of “eye test over everything”. Since winning his first MVP the majority of spreadsheets and formulated NBA metrics claimed he was the greatest offensive player ever. There’s never been more pushback to that sentiment than right now.

@jasonwpratt @TheNBABase What's more smug and self-righteous than going by universeman? Trump sends his love.

@zlomki @TheNBABase There it is, that smug self-righteous idiocy we’re all so tired of. You have no idea who I voted for.

Steve Kerr says he would consider ELIMINATING the three-point line to make the game more creative “I would never do a four-point play. In fact, I would even consider getting rid of the three-point line. I just think that the game, as it was designed, is really to create the best shots possible. That’s why in the early days, you just throw it inside to the big guy. A three-point line came from the A.B.A., in 1979, and I think it was really effective. It makes for an exciting play, but the analytics revolution has created a weird situation where we all know exactly where the highest efficiency shots are: layups and corner threes because the corner three is twenty-two feet and not 23.9, like the up above the break. You have this whole no man’s land between those areas. So if you shoot a twenty-two-footer now from the top of the key, that’s considered a really bad shot. I just wonder—and I don’t know if this would work or not—if we got rid of the three-point line, if it would diversify the way everybody would play and create a lot of different creative solutions to basketball.” (Via @NewYorker , newyorker.com/news/the-new-y…)

@jasonwpratt @TheNBABase Sounds like you could use a good lecture on reasons not to vote for a pedophile.

@TheNBABase You know what else we should get rid of? Postgame interviews in which coaches lecture us on their personal politics. That would also help the NBA game.

@HelmetAddict Equally lame

Today's Helmet Battle: Packers VS. Bears. Both are considered old school classic helmets, but which is the better of these old longtime division rivals?

@HelmetAddict If anyone watches the NFL and this league, they have a serious problem and should seek help.

How many of you guys are watching the UFL? I constantly forget it exists.

@HelmetAddict Michigan

Helmet Battle: Who has the better helmet, Ohio State or Michigan? I can't imagine many people have strong feelings about this matchup.

@theepicmap The .00001% controls the 99.99999%

What is the first thing that comes in your mind when you think of USA 🇺🇸

@WUTangKids What a fat tub of lard.

No deal with Iran and gas prices surging while dear leader was at UFC last night and now holding court at his country club

@MelonieMac You are smokin hot but that's it.

Kinda boomer posting but he's not calling himself Jesus. He has been clear all along that he feels he is doing the work God set for him. Jesus' disciples healed the sick in His name. With Christ in us, we can do His work too. People who are outraged just wanna be

@stats_feed Keurig pods

What's something you'd never buy even if it was discounted by 99.99%?

@nut_history The swagger was palpable.

Which batting stance did you imitate as a kid?

@HelmetAddict The security guard got completely boushat on. I wonder why they couldn't come to an agreement to continue using his logo. Was Art Modell that big of ass or was the security guard want too much?

Helmet of the Day: The Ravens Original Logo. Ditched after a copyright dispute over who designed the logo, the Ravens lost a long legal battle that does not allow them to use the logo anymore. Is there any other examples of a franchise being unable to use a logo form their history?

@ZeroHedge_ There's nothing brilliant about this presidency. If anything positive happens, it was unintentional.

@uscfan981 It borders a great lake and Dave Chappelle lives there.

Say something nice about Ohio.

@TLAartwork Darker purple unis, grey facemask, eggshell helmet

The Vikings have a great modern classic uniform, but the one thing that could make it a 10/10 in my opinion is changing to a gloss helmet and a different colored facemask. Which would you pick or do you prefer what they have now?

@carmelo52056091 @scottmelker We all know who you voted for with this lower level of reasoning. Some say it is so low Donald J Trump might seem smart.

Hi Scott you are 100% in titled to your opinion and to express it. But you risk pissing off half of your listeners. It’s why you never see a sign supporting Dem or Rep in department stores or grocery stores or any respectable public business. But hey brother you go you. But remember one thing know one who listens to you sought you out for political banter we were looking for crypto news!

Everyone has biases, even the people who insist they don’t. I admit mine openly. I’m skeptical of politicians on both sides, skeptical of institutions, and skeptical of neatly packaged narratives that arrive fully formed the moment a war begins. That does not mean I can’t be objective. In fact, I try very hard to do exactly that – listen carefully, compare what I’m being told to observable reality, and adjust if the facts prove me wrong. I’m always happy to be proven wrong. Since this war began, I’ve been accused endlessly of having “TDS” because I have questioned the motives, messaging, and stated goals. Fine. Here is how I see it, based on the information we actually have, not the emotional narratives people seem desperate to force onto everyone else. At the start, we were told this was about stopping an imminent nuclear threat, crushing an evil regime, ending its ability to fund terror, and in some versions, even helping save the Iranian people. Those are massive claims. They also happen to be the kinds of claims governments have historically used to sell wars to the public, which is exactly why skepticism is not only reasonable, but necessary. But lets take those at face value and look at the information we have today. If this were truly a humanitarian mission, then threatening to bomb civilian infrastructure and effectively collapse a civilization would completely contradict that premise. Yes, that would hurt the regime. It would also devastate ordinary people far more profoundly. You cannot credibly claim to be saving a population while openly discussing actions that would immiserate that same population. If this were truly about regime change, that case also looks weak based on the facts on the ground. We are now hearing that negotiations are happening with the same regime structure, reportedly through the Ayatollah’s son. There has been no clear public indication in the reported terms that regime replacement is a non-negotiable demand. If the same power structure remains in place, then either regime change was never the real objective, or the goalposts moved the moment reality got in the way. Then there is the nuclear issue, which is where the skepticism becomes even more obvious. We have heard for decades that Iran is “weeks away” from a nuclear weapon. We were told not long ago that their capabilities had been destroyed. Now we are again being told that the threat is immediate and urgent. Maybe it is. I’m open to that possibility. But if today’s claim is true, then many previous claims were exaggerated, false, or at minimum deeply misleading. That should not make people less skeptical. It should make them more skeptical. And even now, the reported ceasefire and negotiation terms appear murky and inconsistent. Some reports suggest Iran could retain some enrichment capability. Some reports contradict others. Iranian news cannot be trusted at face value, and frankly neither can the instant spin coming from politicians or war cheerleaders here. We know very little with certainty, and pretending otherwise is dishonest. What we do seem to know is that the Strait of Hormuz has become central to the negotiations. Think about what that means. At the beginning, the strait was open. The public case for war was not presented as being about oil. Now the strait is effectively the key pressure point, Iran still appears to retain leverage over it, and reopening it is treated as a core objective. That matters. Because if the war began with one stated rationale and is now being negotiated around maritime access and energy flow, then people are justified in asking whether oil was always a bigger part of the story than they were told. Especially when you then hear rhetoric about “keeping the oil” or controlling the outcome in ways that sound far more strategic and economic than humanitarian. From what we are seeing publicly, the main objective is now to open a Strait that was always open until the war began. So my position is simple: I do not claim perfect knowledge. I fully admit I could be wrong. I admit my own bias toward distrusting official narratives. But when I look at what we were told, then look at the facts as they currently appear, I do not see a clean moral story or a successful, clearly defined mission. I see shifting justifications, unclear objectives, contradictory reporting, and outcomes that do not seem to match the original sales pitch. That is not “TDS.” That is applying the same skepticism to war propaganda that people claim to value in every other context. You do not have to agree with me. But at minimum, don’t ask me to suspend pattern recognition, ignore moving goalposts, and pretend that changing narratives are proof of honesty instead of the exact opposite.