!HD 720P! Free Download Namsan ui bujangdeul

✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦✦

WATCH

✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯✯

 

 

Countries=South Korea Writers=Min-ho Woo Release year=2020 8,6 / 10 Stars Runtime=1hour 54 Minute.

 

Free download namsan ui deula. I loved the boys over flowers sketch lmfaoooo. Free download namsan ui bujang deul links. “and if we dont do leather straps today, you know we can always just do that on our own” looks pointedly at tyler.

When I see the title Namsan tower... I remember Boys over flowers. Free download namsan ui deule. Korea is woke by choosing BTS to promote Seoul 😍 Korea sweetie youre doing great ✨. Namsan Tower reminded me of BOF ❤️ and thankyou for the last part BTS yeahhhh 🎈 and you are doing great such an inspiration. Btw whos with you nadine? And also enjoy your trip. Omg youre also left handed coz same hehe anyways love u nades i really love the style of ur vlogs 💖.

OMG EXO CAME HEREEEEE <3  in exo showtime :DDDDDDDDD they wrote on a lock and out one there, and they wrote on a tileeee. Oh God I want to go to Namsan tower if someday i'm visiting Seoul... EXO went there, the lead actor and lead actress from 'my love from the star' went there. Who doesn't want to go there xD. Awesome place.

A few days ago u/TheIenzo asked on this sub if there was an anarchist response to Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy by Karl Marx. So I wrote one. I'm sharing it here as I think that it explores many basic subjects on the distinction between Marxism and Anarchy. I will mostly focus on the text. I could use Lenin, Marx and other Bakunin texts to describe the issues of rethoric, but I prefer to write as if the text of Marx stands on its own. A much more thorough analysis of Marx's and Bakunin's writings would be necessary to understand the political movements and the conflicts between Marxism and Anarchy and not simply between Marx and Bakunin. I will talk about the entire text as it is very short. Even if it is short we often end up talking about the same subject again and again. Overall each argument can fall into two large categories. The first one is what I will call "rethoric". Bakunin criticizes marxists for using a certain rethoric which is hurtful to the socialist movement as people end up misunderstanding socialism. The second is Marx's failure to see the inherent political aspect of a centralized system. On every other subject it would seem to me that Bakunin and Marx agree. We have already stated our deep opposition to the theory of Lassalle and Marx, which recommends to the workers, if not as final ideal then at least as the next major aim -- the foundation of a people's state, which, as they have expressed it, will be none other than the proletariat organized as ruling class. The question arises, if the proletariat becomes the ruling class, over whom will it rule? It means that there will still remain another proletariat, which will be subject to this new domination, this new state. It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means. It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared and must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened. Bakunin was complaining about how the "people's state" would in fact not be the entire proletariat in power oppressing the minority of bourgeois but how the members of the proletariat which have taken state power would become the new bourgeoisie, oppressing the proletariat and (maybe) the old bourgeoisie. For Bakunin the state implies the rule of a minority over a majority, therefore a prolatarian state is simply the old proletariat taking over the old role of the bourgeois parliamentaries. Marx did thought that the proletarian state should be highly democratic, up to a point it could become not a state according to Bakunin. There isn't much of a disagreement there honestly. It mostly depends on your reading of Marx and of which texts do you consider more important. Bakunin was definitely more radical but even from Bakunin's position you could see Marx as not really disagreeing. e. g. the krestyanskaya chern, the common peasant folk, the peasant mob, which as is well known does not enjoy the goodwill of the Marxists, and which, being as it is at the lowest level of culture, will apparently be governed by the urban factory proletariat. i. where the peasant exists in the mass as private proprietor, where he even forms a more or less considerable majority, as in all states of the west European continent, where he has not disappeared and been replaced by the agricultural wage-labourer, as in England, the following cases apply: either he hinders each workers' revolution, makes a wreck of it, as he has formerly done in France, or the proletariat (for the peasant proprietor does not belong to the proletariat, and even where his condition is proletarian, he believes himself not to) must as government take measures through which the peasant finds his condition immediately improved, so as to win him for the revolution; measures which will at least provide the possibility of easing the transition from private ownership of land to collective ownership, so that the peasant arrives at this of his own accord, from economic reasons. It must not hit the peasant over the head, as it would e. by proclaiming the abolition of the right of inheritance or the abolition of his property. The latter is only possible where the capitalist tenant farmer has forced out the peasants, and where the true cultivator is just as good a proletarian, a wage-labourer, as is the town worker, and so has immediately, not just indirectly, the very same interests as him. Still less should small-holding property be strengthened, by the enlargement of the peasant allotment simply through peasant annexation of the larger estates, as in Bakunin's revolutionary campaign. Again both Marx and Bakunin have reasonable points to make. Marx is right in saying that peasants will only join the revolution because of possible economic gains. He fails to see that as the same is true for proletarians, there is not much of a need to be as dramatic as he is when talking about the peasantry. Many peasants were revolutionary and many proletarians were not, but yes, as the peasants are more likely to own some form of capital than the proletarian so there will need to be an effort from the proletariat to push the peasants to the revolution. Kropotkin talks about it in detail and I will quote him on the subject in the next part. Or, if one considers this question from the national angle, we would for the same reason assume that, as far as the Germans are concerned, the Slavs will stand in the same slavish dependence towards the victorious German proletariat as the latter does at present towards its own bourgeoisie. Schoolboy stupidity! A radical social revolution depends on certain definite historical conditions of economic development as its precondition. It is also only possible where with capitalist production the industrial proletariat occupies at least an important position among the mass of the people. And if it is to have any chance of victory, it must be able to do immediately as much for the peasants as the French bourgeoisie, mutatis mutandis, did in its revolution for the French peasants of that time. A fine idea, that the rule of labour involves the subjugation of land labour! But here Mr Bakunin's innermost thoughts emerge. He understands absolutely nothing about the social revolution, only its political phrases. Its economic conditions do not exist for him. As all hitherto existing economic forms, developed or undeveloped, involve the enslavement of the worker (whether in the form of wage-labourer, peasant etc. ), he believes that a radical revolution is possible in all such forms alike. Still more! He wants the European social revolution, premised on the economic basis of capitalist production, to take place at the level of the Russian or Slavic agricultural and pastoral peoples, not to surpass this level [... ] The will, and not the economic conditions, is the foundation of his social revolution. I feel that this is a bit disengeneous of Marx. Bakunin is concerned about how the marxists are pushing economical arguments (the difference between the proletariat and the peasantry) to the extreme. If Marx believes that the difference in economic situations implies that the proletariat must help the peasantry realize their possible economic gains from a revolution, many marxists believe this means the proletariat must take control of the farms and take all decisions for the peasants. You can't ignore this by saying "well the revolution will just happen the way it will happen because material conditions ", ideas are also part of the material conditions. Bakunin can seem a bit agressive because what he criticizes is not the exact position of Marx but he is right in saying that the way we talk about a revolution will shape the revolution. Of course this was in 1875 so things were much different. I think anarchists are right to explain the material conditions of the peasantry in a more positive manner, as they reach the same conclusions. Conveniently this is exactly what is expressed in The Conquest Of Bread by Peter Kropotkin. By looking at the revolutions in France, Kropotkin argues Let us now return to our city in revolt, and consider how its citizens can provide foodstuffs for themselves. How are the necessary provisions to be obtained if the nation as a whole has not accepted Communism? This is the question to be solved. In 1789–93, the French peasantry took four years to finally rid themselves of the redemption of feudal rights This means that the peasants will probably not revolt as fast the the cities, and Kropotkin would probably not disagree with the justification that Marx gives, which is economic. However, Kropotkin also criticizes the attemps that have existed of taking food by force, something that as Marx explains, he is not in favor, but that many "Marxists" are. For Kropotkin it is in fact the authoritarians who are utopist and do not consider the history of revolutions that have showed how this can not work To those who put their trust in “authority” the question will appear quite simple. They would begin by establishing a strongly centralized Government, furnished with all the machinery of coercion — the police, the army, the guillotine. Now, we declare with the fullest conviction, not merely that such a solution is undesirable, but that it never could by any possibility be put into practice. It is wildly Utopian! He uses the French Revolution as an exemple In 1793 the provinces starved the large towns, and killed the Revolution. And yet it is a known fact that the production of grain in France during 1792–93 had not diminished [... ], the peasants [... ] withheld their produce, waiting for a rise in the price, or the introduction of gold. The commissaries of the Convention did not scruple to guillotine those who withheld their grain from the market [... ], All the same, the corn was not forthcoming, and the townsfolk suffered from famine. Kropotkin then argues that instead of even more authority the townsfolk must give the peasantry an economic interest to give them food, and that they are not interested in money, because it is economically, a bad choice As long as worthless paper money is offered to the peasant-producer it will always be the same. The peasant is interested in material gain and so the revolutionaries must offer to the peasant in exchange for his toil not worthless paper money, but the manufactured articles of which he stands in immediate need. We see that Kropotkin reaches the same conclusion as Marx, using the same economical analysis but he uses rethoric to show the struggle from the point of view of the peasantry. This gives a complete different outlook on what should be done. To overcome the struggle of the peasants, it is not authority but solidarity which will solve the problem. The whole section of The Conquest of Bread called "Food" is worth the read to better understand this. Some marxists understand the problems perfectly but think that thanks to their understanding, if they just enact their will on everyone else they will create a communist society. The problem is that this line of thinking forgets how the economical analysis gives us a mean of achieving communism and it can not be ignored in favor of "practicality". In this text Marx seems to understand this perfectly, but marxists often don't. Also, "schoolboy stupidity", yikes, bad look. This is not a sign of good faith, saying that someone is childish means that one refuses to engage in the discussion as the other person is supposedly not mature enough to even have the discussion. Maybe this text was motivated, more by personal issues than by an actual disagreement. If there is a state [gosudarstvo], then there is unavoidably domination [gospodstvo], and consequently slavery. Domination without slavery, open or veiled, is unthinkable -- this is why we are enemies of the state. What does it mean, the proletariat organized as ruling class? It means that the proletariat, instead of struggling sectionally against the economically privileged class, has attained a sufficient strength and organization to employ general means of coercion in this struggle. It can however only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat, hence as class. With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared. Again a misunderstanding on the idea of state for anarchists. If the proletariat controls the entire state, then it no longer is one. Once again Bakunin worries about how rethoric will be used to pretend that a state is "proletarian" when it is not (Hello russian revolution). Again Marx is not wrong, it's more a problem of rethoric. If wage and class are abolished then no anarchist would protest the "state" but anarchists are worried that we will not go far enough and maintain the wage and class system (Hello russian revolution). This is essential to the anarchist rethoric, "we must not be scared to go too far or else we will not go far enough". Anyway, no real disagreement once again. Will the entire proletariat perhaps stand at the head of the government? In a trade union, for example, does the whole union form its executive committee? Will all division of labour in the factory, and the various functions that correspond to this, cease? And in Bakunin's constitution, will all 'from bottom to top' be 'at the top'? Then there will certainly be no one 'at the bottom'. Will all members of the commune simultaneously manage the interests of its territory? Then there will be no distinction between commune and territory. This is the main disagreement between Marx and Bakunin. Centralism vs Federalism. If the organisation is not perfectly flat even for Bakunin, it is important that the people at the top do not have power of the people at the bottom. When the people at the top decide for the people at the bottom we end up with different interests clashing. If the people at the bottom are making the actual decisions and "hierarchies" are simply made to organize and bring concensus on action, then there is only one interest (as anarchists believe that a social revolution requires an international revolution, in the same way that for a revolution to happen the people must decide to move away from capitalist production, they must also abolish regionalist tensions), and class society is therefore abolished. I would side with Bakunin on this one as I believe that Marx does not really have a conterpoint and chosed centralism "just because" while ignoring the inherent differences of interests which appear in a centralized system. Marx supposes that class is abolished, and then advocates a system of centralism, when he should start with a centralized system and analyse it to find if it solves class conflict. He assumes class is abolished, therefore it is. In my opinion this is a mistake. The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government? Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune. Again, Marx doesn't see the contradiction between centralism and "self-government" because he assumes that class doesn't exist. The whole people will govern, and there will be no governed. If a man rules himself, he does not do so on this principle, for he is after all himself and no other. I don't think I understand this sentence. Feel free to tell me what it means. I'm going to assume it's semantics but I might be wrong. Then there will be no government and no state, but if there is a state, there will be both governors and slaves. only if class rule has disappeared, and there is no state in the present political sense. They agree. This dilemma is simply solved in the Marxists' theory. By people's government they understand (i. Bakunin) the government of the people by means of a small number of leaders, chosen (elected) by the people. Asine! This is democratic twaddle, political drivel. Election is a political form present in the smallest Russian commune and artel. The character of the election does not depend on this name, but on the economic foundation, the economic situation of the voters, and as soon as the functions have ceased to be political ones, there exists 1) no government function, 2) the distribution of the general functions has become a business matter, that gives no one domination, 3) election has nothing of its present political character. Same mistake that Marx makes again. He assumes no class, therefore no politics. How can a society where a man can take decision for its subbordinates be exempt of "politics" is beyond me. The contradiction is right there but is ignored because of previously assumed axioms. The universal suffrage of the whole people... Such a thing as the whole people in today's sense is a chimera -- They agree.... in the election of people's representatives and rulers of the state -- that is the last word of the Marxists, as also of the democratic school -- [is] a lie, behind which is concealed the despotism of the governing minority, and only the more dangerously in so far as it appears as expression of the so-called people's will. With collective ownership the so-called people's will vanishes, to make way for the real will of the cooperative. We're back at the same point. Politics do not exist because politics do not exist. Also Bakunin makes somewhat of an argument about manufacture of consent which is funny. So the result is: guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, say the Marxists... Where?... will consist of workers. Certainly, with your permission, of former workers, who however, as soon as they have become representatives or governors of the people, cease to be workers... As little as a factory owner today ceases to be a capitalist if he becomes a municipal councillor... Again they completely agree. and look down on the whole common workers' world from the height of the state. They will no longer represent the people, but themselves and their pretensions to people's government. Anyone who can doubt this knows nothing of the nature of men. If Mr Bakunin only knew something about the position of a manager in a workers' cooperative factory, all his dreams of domination would go to the devil. He should have asked himself what form the administrative function can take on the basis of this workers' state, if he wants to call it that. Bakunin knows about managers and he criticizes that their role if they had authority would be the same of the ones under capitalism. Marx assumes that class is abolished, therefore politics are abolished, therefore managers will not enact their power to further their interest. Of course we know that if these managers exist, then they will enact their power, restoring politics and restoring class. In fact despotic managers, enact the division of labour, and the forced division of labour is dangerous to the working man. As some terrible anarchist might even say Some crippling of body and mind is inseparable even from division of labour in society as a whole To subdivide a man is to execute him, if he deserves the sentence, to assassinate him if he does not... The subdivision of labour is the assassination of a people. Of course this was not written by an anarchist but by Marx, in The Capital, chapter 14. But those elected will be fervently convinced and therefore educated socialists. The phrase 'educated socialism'..... was used. But will be used later. We can not blame Marx for this, however Bakunin rightly sees that socialists who do not reject authority will start to use vague terms to justify their power positions. I may be a bit too generous on that reading of Bakunin.... 'scientific socialism'..... only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself; see my text against Proudhon. Same here.. is unceasingly found in the works and speeches of the Lasalleans and Marxists, itself indicates that the so-called people's state will be nothing else than the very despotic guidance of the mass of the people by a new and numerically very small aristocracy of the genuine or supposedly educated. The people are not scientific, which means that they will be entirely freed from the cares of government, they will be entirely shut up in the stable of the governed. A fine liberation! The Marxists sense this (! ) contradiction and, knowing that the government of the educated (quelle reverie) will be the most oppressive, most detestable, most despised in the world, a real dictatorship despite all democratic forms, console themselves with the thought that this dictatorship will only be transitional and short. Non, mon cher! -- That the class rule of the workers over the strata of the old world whom they have been fighting can only exist as long as the economic basis of class existence is not destroyed. Again an argument about rethoric. It is perfectly valid of Bakunin to criticize what would later become "intellectualism" something which now qualifies the liberal society we live in where the rulers justify the existence of their rule (and capitalism) through education. Marx does not adress the fact that all education is and will be a political and class matter. For Marx education is political and classist but only now because of capitalism, but as he supposes the abolition of class as his axiom he fails to see as these same political issues are carried through the "revolution" A good read on the subject is Chomsky's Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship If it is plausible that ideology will in general serve as a mask for self-interest, then it is a natural presumption that intellectuals, in interpreting history or formulating policy, will tend to adopt an elitist position, condemning popular movements and mass participation in decision-making, and emphasizing rather the necessity for supervision by those who possess the knowledge and understanding that is required (so they claim) to manage society and control social change. This is hardly a novel thought. One major element in the anarchist critique of Marxism a century ago was the prediction that, as Bakunin formulated it: According to the theory of Mr. Marx, the people not only must not destroy [the state] but must strengthen it and place it at the complete disposal of their benefactors, guardians, and teachers -- the leaders of the Communist party, namely Mr. Marx and his friends, who will proceed to liberate humankind in their own Way. They will concentrate the reins of government in a strong hand, because the ignorant people require an exceedingly firm guardianship; they Will establish a single state bank, concentrating in its hands all commercial, industrial, agricultural and even scientific production, and then divide the masses into two armies -- industrial and agricultural -- under the direct command of the state engineers, who will constitute a new privileged scientific-political estate The rest of the text explores this idea through the exemple of the Spanish Civil War, showing how "elistism" and "education" is only a pretext to further the interests of the ruling class. To go back to Marx's criticism of Bakunin They say that their only concern and aim is to educate and uplift the people (saloon-bar politicians! ) both economically and politically, to such a level that all government will be quite useless and the state will lose all political character, i. character of domination, and will change by itself into a free organization of economic interests and communes. An obvious contradiction. If their state will really be popular, why not destroy it, and if its destruction is necessary for the real liberation of the people, why do they venture to call it popular? Aside from the harping of Liebknecht's Volksstaat, which is nonsense, counter to the Communist Manifesto etc., it only means that, as the proletariat still acts, during the period of struggle for the overthrow of the old society, on the basis of that old society, and hence also still moves within political forms which more or less belong to it, it has not yet, during this period of struggle, attained its final constitution, and employs means for its liberation which after this liberation fall aside. Mr Bakunin concludes from this that it is better to do nothing at all... just wait for the day of general liquidation -- the last judgement. As we see Marx is mostly concerned with the description of the revolution. Rephrasing Marx, "we say that the state will still exist because it is a matter of fact that there will be a transition". Bakunin on the other hand is arguing for what should be done. He does not deny the existence of the transition, but if there will be a transition then it has to be temporary which means that necessarily the goal of the proletariat is to abolish the state and this is what they should be concerned with. It would be important to look at the legacies of both movements to understand how did their rethoric influenced the followers of either ideology to get a better understanding of how to agitate in the right direction, towards a post-capitalist society. In Conclusion, Marx and Bakunin agree on most, espcially on the analysis of "today's" society. I feel that Bakunin's analysis is more interesting because it takes into account rethoric and means while Marx tends to (this is important) detach himself from the revolution and see it as something abstract which will be carried out. Criticisms and questions are welcome. Thanks for reading and have a nice day. :) [1] - The Conquest of Bread - Peter Kropotkin [2] - The Capital - Karl Marx [3] - Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship - Noam Chomsky.

Welcome back, Punt Fans, to the [EXCITED FANFARE] SEASON ENDING FRIGGEN' FINALE edition of our weekly hunt for the King of Punt – it’s r/NFL ’s own Punt Rank. If you haven’t been here with me before, the concept is both simple and fantastically over-engineered. Lemme break it down: Each punter’s performance against five vital punting metrics is ranked against every other punter in the league. Those rankings are combined into a weighted average ranking – the 2019 NFL Punt Rank. Punt Heroes rise to the top; Punt Zeros sink to the bottom. It's as simple as that. And this week, after 2193 total punts in the NFL 2019 Regular Season, we have reached the end. Our final Punt Rank standings are here. And our overall champion is, well. You'll find out. Usually at this point we’d do the overall standings. But not this week, oh no. This week, the standings are the end with the season round up TO FIND OUT THAT OVERALL WINNER. Now, if you want to ruin it, then feel free to skip to the good bit. But for those purists who care about what happened in Week 17, here’s the weekly punt performance (this week, alphabetically by team – no spoilers! ), and the associated rundown: Week 17 Punt Performance Summary Good Week for Jamie Gillan (+4 to #9). The Scottish Hammer caps off a fine rookie season with a vintage Scottish performance. By that I mean he wandered out buzzin’ on Buckfast spoilin’ for a fight and ended up beltin’ oot Proclaimers oon tha wee singbox wi’ tha lood voice talkin’ stick AN WHO THA FUCK A YOO LOOKIN’ AT EH BIG MAN wait where was I. Oh yeah, Scottish Hammer. Kid can punt, that’s what you need to know here. Two MAHOOSIVE 62 yard thumpers to the 15 and the 4 were at the cornerstone of this 50% In20, 52. 1 Net Average Yard (NAY) performance which took the Hammer right into the Top 10. Great punting, great season, great hair. Sam Koch (Hold Steady at #18). So we never did quite get the all-time low punts punting season we thought we might end up with, but Sam went Ham on the 4D Punting Chess this week to preserve his spot inside the top 20. Three punts, three punts Inside the 20, season In20% up by 3. 9% to an impressive 52. 5% (21/40). Why the 4D Punting Chess? Amazingly, all three of these "In20" punts ended up at the 19 yard line. HE’S PLAYING THE SYSTEM AND YOU CAN’T EVEN SEE IT, YOU SHEEP!! Ryan Allen (+6 to #19). Well this ended up better than it started. Atlanta IR/Punt Death replacement Allen (the only punter I can think of who has been cut after one game week and been back punting again the next week) has somehow scrambled into the Top 20 with his two punts in Week 17 which both ended up Inside the 20, taking him to a perfectly balanced 50% for the season. Interesting off-season ahead for Allen – both he and lonnnng time Falcons punter Matt Bosher are free agents for 2020. The difference is Bosher took $2. 5m to miss most of 2019 and Allen outpunted him on a 1 year deal for $805k. He’s also three years younger than Bosh. Might just be that Allen finds a new home down south with the Birds this winter. Bad Week for Jordan Berry (-3 to #30). It may shock you to learn that I have never been an NFL punter. I have never been a college punter. I have never even punted a football in an actual game, so there’s a chance I may be wrong with this. Buuuut I’m going to go out on a limb and say that when the bending over guy does the throwy action and the ball thing comes to you, you’re probably NOT supposed to flap at it like a maiden aunt trying to shoo a wasp, finangle it backwards towards your own end zone and watch the other team rumble it in for a touchdown. Like I said, I may be wrong, but it just seems like a bad idea. Tress Way (-2 to #10). Tress Way regularly punts the ball 70 yards because Tress Way is a freakish human. Tress Way’s longest punt this season is SEVENTY NINE YARDS which is like, 14 Dwayne Haskins pass plays. Sometimes (like this week) Tress Way kicks it too far and his 70 yard punts go for touchbacks. When you chuck a touchback and a seven yard return into the mix and still average 49. 1 Net Yards you’re probably doing OK. However, the Punt Rank doesn’t lie, and down he must fall. Cruel I know, but the four year, $15m contract extension just signed has probably helped a bit. Chris Jones (+1 to #29). Yeah yeah, Chris Jones went up the rankings, blah blah. Only because no one needed to return his miserable 18 yard punt from his own 26 yard line. Jones finishes the season 29th of 32, with the lowest overall Gross Yards (41. 6), lowest overall Net Yards (37. 0), and the shortest ‘Long’ punt of the year (58 yards). For a guy who used to be called The Puntisher, this is borderline embarrassing. Cowboys have $1. 5m in dead money on Jones through 2020 and 2021, but can save $3. 4m in Cap Space if he’s cut before June. I’d be sorely tempted to pull that trigger if I was *[* INSERT NEW COACH OF DALLAS COWBOYS HERE AH WHO ARE WE KIDDING JERRY MAKES ALL THE DECISIONS ANYWAY]. Touchback Survivor Watch – Week 17 [To recap: as we approach the conclusion of the season, I like to keep an eye on which ‘full season’ punters are yet to kick a touchback. There have only been three such seasons in NFL history (or, um, since 1991 when we started recording touchbacks), so it’s kind of a big deal for me - and it should be for you too. ] HE DID IT! HE ONLY WENT AND DID IT! With another touchback free performance this week against the Bears, Britton Colquitt became just the fourth punter of all time (cough, 1991, cough) to kick a full 16 game season without giving up a touchback. And you know the weirdest thing? After only one Perfect Season in the first 25 years of counting (Sav Rocca for Washington in 2013), there have now been three in a row – Ryan Quigley (MIN, 2017), Tress Way (WSH, 2018) and now BC in 2019, again for the Vikes. SOMEBODY GET VEGAS ON THE PHONE. Let’s hope Britton’s offseason goes better than Ryan Quigley’s, who followed up his touchbackless year by punting in Minny all pre-season then getting his ass cut so damn fast in favour of Matt Wile just before the 2018 season. Maybe ol’ Wile E. Coyote will be sniffing around the UFA Colquitt’s locker again this year. If he goes, at least it is at the pinnacle. Britton - me and the eleven other people reading this salute you! Punt of the week – Week 17 Those of you who were here last week will remember the sad loss of our brother-in-punting Michael Palardy (CAR), utterly ravaged by Nyheim Hines to the tune of two TDs and a week of bed rest where he just screamed 'BUT WHY WILL NO ONE TACKLE HIM' over and over again. However, I am pleased to say that it appears reports of his demise were greatly exaggerated. Because Mikey P was back in Week 17, and he was BOOMIN’. His second contender for Punt of the Week (Q3, 08:27) was a 47 yard beauty which was batted back at the goal line by DeAndrew White who had scrambled downfield to down the punt. The only problem was he scrambled most of the way there with his ass out of bounds so his intervention was ruled Illegal Touching and instead of a punt to the one yard line, we had a Touchback. Poor Michael. By this point though it was shits and giggles for Mike, as the Punt of the Week award was already in the bag. Just five minutes earlier (Q3, 13:14) Palardy had pinged a 41 yarder to the most coffiney of coffin corners – 6 inches out of bounds at the 1 yard line. It was so close to staying in play that it actually bounced back in bounds and into the end zone and the line judge was signalling touchback until he was forcefully remonstrated with by one of the Panthers special teamers pointing enthusiastically at the giant blazing crater in the ground that Palardy's fireball had made. The direction was superb. The distance was sublime. The 98% of Available Field Covered was sensational. I loved everything about it. But best of all, Palardy’s nose for the red-zone (is it the red zone when you’re kicking it away? IDK) gave him 57% In20 (even with his unfortunate touchback) on the day, helping him scrape himself off the bottom of the Punt Rank table just in time. 31st of 32 baby! That’s the Panther spirit! 2019 Season Round Up (with Charts! ) If you’ve managed to read this far, I’m so so sorry, but well done. You made it to the juicy bit, the promised land, the season round up. Who the hell won this shit, and why are we doing this anyway (disclaimer: not all questions may be answered). Without further ado... 2019 Punt Rank: Week 17 and FINAL Standings The winner… Unbelievably, it’s Bryan Fucking Anger (HOU). Anger, who after seven seasons in the league was now nowhere NEAR an NFL Roster in September (having been cast aside by the Bucs for younger and much less bald Bradley Pinion). Somehow though, the shiny-headed one wrangled himself into a three year, $8m contract in Houston after just two weeks of Trevor Daniel. And boy did he utterly and inexplicably turn out to be worth it. His Punt Rank stats: 2nd in Net Yards (44. 5) [NB: 7th in Gross Yards (46. 5) – not included in Punt Rank] 1st in% Inside 20 (53. 3%) – by the way, the fourth best In20% of the DECADE, just ahead of… Bryan Anger's 2016 season in 5th place with 52. 9%. 13th in% Punts Returned (37. 8%) 1st in% Gross Yards Lost (2. 5%) 14th in Touchback% (4. 4%). Overall Punt Rank Score of 4. 9. For those of you watching in black and white, that is some snazzy ass punting. With the exception of% Punts Returned, all of Anger’s metrics in 2019 were career bests. Talk about returning to the NFL with a Bang(er). Sorry. Those punt rankings in full (in chart form! ): 2019 Punt Rank - Overall Ranking As you can see from the chart above, there were two clear tiers at the top of the 2019 Punt Rank. Tier 1: Anger, Thomas Morstead (NO) and Brett Kern (TEN). Tier 2: Britton Colquitt (MIN), Logan Cooke (JAX) and Riley Dixon (NYG). All of these men had really impressive years and deserve your undying love and admiration until next season. After the top tiers though, it’s actually quite a long and evenly spread tail until we get to… The loser… NOT SO CLEVER NOW ARE YOU TAMPA? Bradley Pinion (TB) walked into that $11m contract with the Bucs fresh outta getting cut by San Francisco for a 27 year old rookie who’s NOT EVEN AMERICAN (see below), and lo-and-behold preceded to wildly and comprehensively suck in all areas. 29th in Net Yards (38. 3) [NB: 29th in Gross Yards (43. 2) – not included in Punt Rank] 29th in% Inside 20 (33. 3%) 22nd in% Punts Returned (43. 9%) 26th in% Gross Yards Lost (9. 0%) 18th in Touchback% (5. 3%). Overall Punt Rank Score of 26. 1. Bradley also managed to finish below Michael Palardy (CAR) who had THREE PUNTS RETURNED FOR TDs on the season, which is borderline miraculous. Speaking of miracles, contract wise there's nothing guaranteed for BP beyond 2020, so he’s probably got one shot to get his shit together. But given that Matt Gay also comprehensively sucked this year, you might fancy that Bruce Arians is going to go and get himself a new punter and kicker (and Quarterback, and Running Back, and Tight End, and, and and and and and arggggggh me hearties we’re pirates). Sorry Tampa, but it's bad. Rookie Champion Great class of rookies in 2019! Jake Bailey (NE, 11th, score of 13. 8) has been fantastic and (without exaggeration) at times New England’s best offensive weapon. Jamie Gillan (CLE, 9th, 13. 6) has punted his wee Scottish heart out for a classically dysfunctional Browns organisation, and A. J. Cole (OAK, 25th, 20. 5) was at least an upgrade on Jonny Townsend, which is a relief because I’ve seen corpses who are more dynamic than JT (may god rest his soul). But our Rookie Winner is everyone’s favourite Aussie Tackling and What Do You Mean That’s A Flag Ya Flamin’ Wombat Mitch Wishnowsky (SF), who finishes 7th overall with a Weighted Punk Rank of 12. 5. Good on ya, cobber. Bonus Chart! For those of you who like the visuals, here is the summary of all the Gross and Net Yardages, sorted by Net Yardage rank. Shout the heck out to Tress Way (WSH) with his league leading Gross Yards of 49. 6, which is the 4th highest average season this decade (and there's gold for you in the comments if you can tell me who had the highest! ). 2019 Punt Rank - Gross and Net Average Yards The End So that does it for 2019 guys. A big, big thank you to those who have read, commented, pointed out when I've made some really basic errors, and otherwise been involved. It's been a pleasure to be here with you every week to bring you all the stats and updates from the world of punting. And with 2019 Punt Rank in the bag, what's next? Well, I've got a decade worth of punting data downloaded and ready to go and some grand delusions about how interested people will be in it, so I'll see you in the offseason and we'll have a little dance shall we? Until then... Punt on.

I love Korea ♥️ how I wish makapunta din dyan someday... 2019 baru liat salfok ama foto di minumannya park soo jon. Cheering sticks Light stick😂. Free download namsan ui deul. Free download namsan ui deulu.

Cycling ffffffffffffffffffffffanatics

Photos Vectors Editorial Videos Image ID: 101192766 Upload Date: Mar 02, 2016 Try our New Flexible Plan for $29 /month Try now Similar Royalty-free Images: Usage Information Photo "Man standing next to truck in vineyard" can be used for personal and commercial purposes according to the conditions of the purchased Royalty-free license. The image is available for download in high resolution quality up to 4300x2867. Stock Image Keywords: Produce, Outdoor, Transport, Rural, Organic, Crate, Season, Truck, Scene, Man, Vineyard, Mode, Owner, Agriculture, Wine, Bring, Agricultural, Street, Factory, Scenic, Winery, Crop, Tractor, Transportation, Male, Equipment, Countryside, Cart, Summer, Winemaker, Harvest, Outdoors, Vine, Travel, Viticulture, People, Vehicle, Dirt, Trailer, Driving, Worker, Delivery, Landscape, Sunshine, Farm, Grow Buy Stock Photos from Categories:.

I love Namsan Tower I wish l can go there with the person I'll love the most❤❤❤(i still don't know him😂. One day I'll definitely go to korea And also I wanna meet u sonal, u are a sweet heart Love 💜. Free download namsan ui deulen. Army challenge... I think Army can pay respect to Go Soo Jung by increasing the views of this video. 20 mil. Free download namsan ui deular.

1. https://seesaawiki.jp/banbai/d/obGqLV00pjtTiQ
2. Namsan ui bujangdeul Free Download release date No Sign Up
3. form.run/@without-sign-up-namsan-ui-bujangdeul-watch
4. gumroad.com/l/720px-namsan-ui-bujangdeul-watch-movie
5. seesaawiki.jp/senshita/d/%26%23171%3b%26%238206%3bTorrent%26%23187%3b%20Namsan%20ui%20bujangdeul%20Watch%20Full
6. https://tomasmunozlucena.blogia.com/2020/022602-namsan-ui-bujangdeul-free-online-without-paying-release-date-mkv-putlocker.php

 

Namsan ui bujangdeul

7.8 (86%) 952 votes

Namsan ui bujangdeul