All Activity

The OP is just joking around, right? Having a little fun on game day? Or, that is actually scary stuff. When I am driving and the light turns red, or there is a stop sign, seemingly clear, simple indications to STOP, I am confident that all will do so, usually. But someone who thinks like this, well, they may look at these clear signs and see something very different..

Bills are on here locally in Columbus oh what a day !!

well that sure is playing 1D chess.. 🙂

2 of our first 3 round picks not contributing at all. Let's hope they make up for it when they finally hit the ground.

And a TJ Watt interception leads to another Steelers TD. 21-6.

I’m not sure…But clearly, the Irish saw weakness and pounced!

I feel like the Vikings defensive performance last week made everyone forget about how legitimately bad Wentz is. They may regret letting Darnold go

I would expect in the Quarterback room it would be especially helpful when breaking down the opponent's defense.

Cool story Mr. Low Info headline reader guy.

You start off with the whole Schroedinger’s cat thing about observers and although interesting, it is irrelevant. On the topic, look at the Monty Hall thing I posted in a link. Your odds of surviving in San Diego?

Hancock up for some special teams reps?

1/10

Why is an irrelevant guy on IR even traveling with the team?

What a ***** bet. Nothing wrong with that.

The story of this game is the movable object (Ravens defense) versus the resistable force (Chiefs offense)

inactive brandon codrington spencer brown landon jackson samuel is active and maybe the punt returner

Landon Jackson inactive again. Not a good sign of where he's at

That could happen in almost any city in the world. In that moment, he wasn't an NFL QB, but rather a (probably) drunk tourist.

Took the Saints to cover , backups give up a late TD to cover

To be serious about this, this wouldn’t work at all. It won’t change any probabilities just because you decide to do something on purpose. All that would do it make you lose the turnover battle for that game when you didn’t need to do so. The same probability or odds of it happening would still be the exact same the following week whether you do it on purpose or not. I understand what you are trying to say or do with this but it doesn’t work that way. So on a serious note the answer to your question is NO.

I'll defer to your judgement and say an everyday turf monster got his chance then. And man, Pittsburgh defense has been relentless.

There is not a more efficient, more concise, more clear demonstration of understanding neither Donald Trump or Nazism than to link the two. Trump isn’t a fascist, and saying so weakens whatever other argument you may have against him. Further, I hope we all see how dangerous the uninformed or disingenuous argument can be. Few political labels carry as much rhetorical firepower as “fascist.” It is an indictment loaded with history’s heaviest baggage, invoking images of Mussolini’s jackboots, Hitler’s concentration camps, and the annihilation of democratic societies. When that term is applied casually, even frequently, to President Trump, it demands a pause for critical thinking. One can support Trump or not, but if we value honest argument, we can’t keep calling him something he demonstrably is not. Trump’s presidencies are disruptive. He challenges norms, attacks the press, casts doubt on electoral outcomes, and uses populist rhetoric to consolidate support. These actions stir legitimate alarm, particularly among academics, journalists, and progressives. But here’s the rub: not everything that alarms us is fascism, and calling it so weakens both the critique and the credibility of those making it. Fascism Is a specific ideology, not a synonym for strong man politics. Historically, fascism is not merely authoritarian or nationalist. It is a tightly defined political ideology marked by: 1) state control, including the dissolution of democratic institutions, and; 2) single-party regime that eliminates all opposition, and; 3) militarized expansionism, glorifying violence as a national cleansing force, and; 4) cult of personality, in which the leader is the mystical embodiment of the national will, and; 5) and; suppression of individual rights, free speech, and press not just in practice, but in principle. I will entertain a conversation around cult of personality and antipathy toward the press. Neither, however, is unique to Trump. Whatever you think of Trump, the United States under his leadership retains multiple centers of democratic power. The courts rule against him. The press stays free and relentless. Political opposition thrives, and elections continue (including one in which he lost and was removed from office). If this is fascism, it is fascism with term limits, Supreme Court rulings, free elections and Saturday Night Live sketches. In other words, it isn’t fascism. It’s tempting to focus on Trump’s authoritarian style and his disregard for norms. He has shown a preference for loyalty over expertise and uses brash rhetoric toward political enemies. But authoritarian tendencies exist across the political spectrum. So does ultra-nationalism. History is replete with left-wing strongmen who centralized power, suppressed opposition, and wrapped their movements in national glory. Stalin, Mao, and Castro were not fascists. They were authoritarians of the left. Their methods overlapped, but their ideologies were different. Fascism is not merely “authoritarianism we don’t like.” To confuse the two is to dilute both terms until they mean nothing. If Trump is a fascist, so too were Woodrow Wilson, FDR (who interned citizens), and Andrew Jackson (who defied the courts). Words like “fascist” should not be used as cudgels in political debate. They are powerful, yes, but that power comes when their precision is used correctly, not when their volume is used incorrectly. When scholars and journalists abandon the precision of language in favor of emotional resonance, they cease to inform and begin to incite. If everything is fascism, then nothing is. Worse, when the real thing arises, and history warns that it always can, we will have spent our credibility crying wolf. We will have alienated those who might otherwise have joined a thoughtful, principled resistance. Opposing Trump, as many Americans reasonably do, does not require historical distortion. There is ample ground to challenge his policies, criticize his conduct, and question his fitness for office. But calling him a fascist is not analysis. It’s theater. That’s my problem with the left. Absent confronting ideas, it tosses out thoughtless labels. If we are going to defend liberal democracy we must be better than that. We must name threats accurately, not emotionally. That means rejecting the lazy comfort of exaggerated labels, and instead embracing the harder works of truth and honesty. I leave this for readers to consider.