All Activity

It’s great to have an actual President again!!

I think we could have won at least one of the SBs they won and 50/50 on one of the ones they lost

What the hell does that comment have to do with anything????

.

So half (50%) of the country pays 2.3% of the total federal income tax we collect and pay an effective tax rate of 3.3%. You think that is too high?

I figured you were doing a "lawyer" thing, it sounds good on paper but is not reasonable

Are you tired from moving the goal posts so far away?

People are acting like the devaluation of the dollar is necessarily bad or unexpected. Seems to me that it is the policy of the Trump Administration. It is Intro to Macroeconomics stuff that a devalued currency raises the cost of imports; all other things being equal, that should work to "improve" the balance of trade. It is a tariff by other means, plus it should also lower the cost of exports to foreign buyers. Economists can argue about whether the downside to a devalued dollar outweighs that. But I have to assume that the current administration's economists would think that a devalued dollar is a good thing. Here's an opinion from a noted economist that devaluation is a bad idea. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/may/07/why-donald-trumps-plan-to-weaken-the-dollar-is-flawed

Ok then medicaid. You asked if nonresident and undocumented aliens can qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. SUMMARY Some nonresident aliens are eligible for Medicaid, but only if they fall within one of the "qualified" alien categories specified in federal law. Nonresident aliens are not eligible for Medicare. And undocumented aliens are barred from both Medicare and non-emergency Medicaid

Given it is 4 years later. I know systems are different by state and country. But believe in Ontario we have 2 years for a suit to be filed. Hence my opinion that it shouldn't be going to any trial.

Not me. His explosion of biased diarrhea is good for a laugh, but that is all.

I suppose that’s true. But even still, after 2018, I don’t think was ever a chance that we have more or equal SB appearances to KC. Maybe something like KC has 2 rings and we have 1? I just kinda look at the SB matchups outside of KC. I don’t know if we are beating that 2020 Bucs team or that 2023 Niners team. Maybe we beat the 2022 Eagles. I don’t think we are beating the 2024 Eagles. I guess the point is, even if we ended KCs season 40% of the time, are we convinced we win the AFCCGs or SBs they won? Or that they lost?

But it is in the business of deciding what is "harassment" that should be banned or punished as an exception to that free speech principle.

Beane also enjoys long walks on the beach and romantic candlelight dinners. Nothing wrong with a little sensitivity from a man. When he asks Josh Allen how he’s doing he actually means it.

I am suspect on the accusers motivation... I am also sensitive to the fact that her allegations may be true and she has been beating this drum for a while... I am supportive of what Max has to say and the vetting process leading to drafting him. I am also concerned by the allegations... I will say that if no other allegations from other women come out, I am more inclined to believe that this is a nothing burger... maybe the truth is in the middle... like she believes what happened was wrong and what happened wasnt technically a crime... I don't know... I have no clue... nor am I going to pretend I have insight as both eventualities could be true. what I do know is that in the absence of clear evidence of guilt and simply a he said she said... I am not condemning either... because dismissing a woman who claims foul when we don't know all of the facts is not where I wanna be... and condemning a young man because someone filed suit immediately after he got a contract is equally wrong... I get we want to compartmentalize and resolve it... but it in the end our presumptions can lead to situations like Ariaza where he as punished by getting cut because an accuser was either feeding BS or misrememebered or conversely dismissing the claims of a woman who was wronged because there are others like Watson where he was a scumbag.... We just don't know and its too important to me at least to pass judgement and come to conclusion based on an article. We have both Criminal and civil proceedings for a reason... when it plays out I will come to my conclusion... in the meantime, I presume innocence until otherwise proven guilty. I am not saying you should agree with me... just this is where I stand and why.

Excellent. The difference is this argument over “misinformation” vs hate speech. Harvard is a private institution you are paying to go to. You should be protected from abuse. The federal government funds it - it can choose not to fund it. It didn’t say Harvard needs to close. The government has the right to protect its citizens from abuse. Misinformation is not the same thing. The government has zero business deciding what should or should not be “misinformation.”

I think there’s lots of coaches, including them, who could have won 5 straight division titles from 2020 to 2024. That’s when we won 5 straight division titles. I don’t think they could have turned around the drought-era Bills like McDermott did. I think McD and co deserve a lot of credit for turning the entire organization around, and that includes drafting and developing Allen. I have never wavered on that. It’s why I agree he would get a job in 2 seconds if he was available for a sad sack organization. He has proven he can turn things around and that makes him a good coach, but not a great one imo. However, NOW, that Allen is great, I think you could replace McD with a lot of other coaches and basically get the same result. My opinion of McD is that he’s a floor raiser, not a ceiling raiser. And now Allen is holding up the floor by being maybe the best QB in football. We don’t need that anymore. I have been very consistent on this in this entire thread. Weird gotcha isn’t fun man, let go of the bone. There’s no scoreboard. You aren’t gonna twist my arm and make me say uncle.

I'm sure the government horrifically infringed on the civil liberties of the various masked ICE officers who sued it for requiring them to do outrageous things like wear masks. That was then, this is now.

what is your basis for saying their should not even be the opportunity for a civil trial?

More.

I agree with you here. A lot of speech is offensive, at least to some people, and for good reason. But a free society has to tolerate that because the risks and consequences of limiting speech may be worse. But here's what I don't get: some of the people who support your viewpoint are the same people who say that Harvard should not tolerate exactly the same kind of speech made on its own campus. So how valuable exactly is this notion of free speech?

You want an American politician stripped of citizenship and deported for his beliefs. You have absolutely no room to argue.

no one would equate Brady coming out of college with Mahomes. You just did I think.. who knows what he would have done in Buffalo??? lol wtf

I took a first date to that movie when it was first in the theaters lol

Sorry, the question as posed initially asked for a, well, lawyerly response. Does calling for genocide (maybe not "genocide" but forced displacement of a people from their recognized land - think "from the river to the sea") violate college codes of conduct? So you got an answer from me that's not that different than the answer the Ivy League presidents gave: no, because unless it is aimed a particular people on campus, it doesn't fit the definition of threatened violence against those people, so 1st Amendment considerations mean we accept it as free speech. There's another question: is it offensive? That one is easier. Yes. It is offensive to call for the elimination of a people from the face of the earth. Always and everywhere. And a subquestion: is it offensive to say "from the river to the sea?" Is it offensive to say "Israel shall control Gaza and the West Bank and the Palestinian residents just have to move somewhere else?" I'm not so sure this one is categorical. It's a political question. UN declarations have always honored the principle of self-determination, but then the question is always "who is the self that gets to determine?" Displaced Palestinians and their offspring aren't voting in Israeli elections for obvious reasons. Russia, after forcibly killing or removing ethnic Ukrainians from much of eastern Ukraine, probably says "let's have a vote amongst the remaining (mostly pro-Russia) people about which country they wish to belong to." So this is more complicated. But since people seem confused by my take, I'll repeat it: calling for the elimination of a people is always offensive and wrong. Depending on the context, it may be a violation of a college's rules, but that requires an examination of the rule and the conduct that allegedly violated the rule.