All Activity

If you take away the clean sweep of the swing states it could have gone either way.

not much a WR can do when his foot was hurt and couldn't play.. just that simple. Bills moved on as it would not cost them anything. Frankly, Bills prob would have done the same with Curtis Samuel if it wasn't for the contract commitment. They pretty much had to keep him and rehab him back to playing. Claypool (and Cooper for that matter) they could just cut /do nothing and get healthier or younger bodies in there.

When you stop and think about it, he’s probably not uncorrect. Flip everything around and we could be looking at a completely different outcome in the election. Though, if you flip it back again, we’re back where we started.

There is only a slim chance anyone will profit from their PSLs. In fact you'd be fortunate to only take a small loss. These PSLs are the fan's stake in building the stadium. If you think about it, it's more fair than sticking taxpayers with the whole nut. At the time $850MM was considered an obscene amount from taxpayers. Now it's only 38.6% of the cost. PSLs are around 10%. Pegula and the NFL cover just over 50%.

This right here is progress. 4 sentences and not a mere mention of the orange menace. Keep talking this way and you may come off the banned list.

Sorry my post should have a full stop after "combo." He has pure size/speed. But the other things you need for football talent are sadly lacking.

Thanks Augie The reason I bring up the funds is because a civil trial is very different from a criminal one. In a criminal case, the convicted goes to prison. The victim gets essentially nothing other than the knowledge that the convicted is locked up and therefore can’t hurt anyone else for the term of their incarceration. However, in a civil case the remedy goes directly to the victim, not to society at large. It’s why, as I’m sure everyone can tell, I’m uncomfortable with these cases. I guess it’s why I’d be less uncomfortable if the plaintiff said they were going to donate the proceeds.

Too late B.B. The lemmings here have their false narrative, NOTHING will change their minds.

You are swimming upstream. C-Section has stated that Trump won by “the thinnest of margins”. I know, hard to imagine.

“Anti climate change?” The post was a well thought out historically backed with evidence that events like this happen in Texas and gave examples going back 125 years. A disaster like it happens and your sides first instinct is freaking blame Trump. Or cuts to jobs that didn’t happen. How absolutely sick. As to the staffing:

Turning the discussion to a slightly different perspective, the subject of employment insecurity was touched on earlier. I've been in the workforce for decades in a few different industries and there definitely are: 1) some workers/employees that are nervous taking time off from work... even family leave... sometimes for good reason (see below). 2) some employers who will view time off from work negatively in their evaluation of an employee. On the subject of baby names (Seymour, Northrup, Chuck, Action, Fort, etc) I'm thinking if it's a boy that the either the first or middle name will be Lucas.

As for the bold, I think she is genuine in her beliefs (as is he, imo) and that she is pursuing the only remedy left available to her. Why do you care what she does with the money? That’s not the point here at all, imo. But it would be foolish to file a civil suit ahead of him signing his contract.

People most remember Thurman in the playoffs for losing his helmet in SB XXVI. Random fans were still making jokes about that 20+ years later. Not so much the big games in the XXV or the Chiefs AFCCG or even the crippling fumble and his pouting on the bench in SB XXVIII. His last 3 SB's he rushed 37 times for a pitiful 69 yards and had 4 fumbles. Brutal. The OL didn't show up for those games either and that kinda' illustrates my point about RB's.

Aloha people I’ve been trying to move this discussion away from the particulars of a he said, she said scenario because as I’ve posted a few times now, none of us knows what actually happened in this incident. The process will obviously play itself out. My conceptual question is whether people think that filing a civil suit is the appropriate remedy (‘justice’ as Sierra called it) for what allegedly happened here. I’m actually on the fence. On the one hand, a monetary settlement doesn’t seem particularly appropriate when the victim hasn’t been monetarily damaged. On the other hand I can understand the frustration of the alleged victim if all other avenues of redress have been (at least in her mind) exhausted. It’s on that point that the timing comes into play. Is it appropriate, as a victim, to simply wait in the weeds and pounce when the defendant comes into money? How does their financial status bring you justice? Are you promising to donate all proceeds to a women’s shelter? If the true intent is to get back at the defendant couldn’t you have done more actual damage to the defendant by bringing this into court BEFORE he even got to this point? I could go on, but I’m curious what people think. Believe me…I realize it’s hard to have such philosophical discussions on a message board.

I don’t know what you’re saying. He’s 6”4 240 pounds and ran a 4.4 not looking just like stop watch guy in the process.

I obviously didn’t read the whole thread. I’m only concerned with responses to my posts. 🙃

Read the 40 posts after that - you’re rehashing an old argument that was thoroughly coveted.

AP is a good choice at 7 overall right now, but I think in a decade people will be singing a different tune…

A Very Consequential Two Weeks for Donald Trump’s Presidency. SALENA ZITO FTA: “In the past 12 days, some of the most consequential decisions in American history, those that will affect generations and leave a substantial impact on our culture, economy and political alignment, have been made either by President Donald Trump or because of him. But they have been largely either downplayed or not fully analyzed in terms of how they all connect.” The U.S. Steel deal between the iconic American company and Nippon Steel happened because of Trump's ability to apply pressure through negotiations that sometimes bewildered everyone involved. But they led to the literal reversal of fortune of an industry, from the additional supply industries that include mechanics, construction workers, transportation systems such as railways, and energy. The 50% tariffs Trump announced the day he visited the U.S. Steel plant in West Mifflin were also seen by American manufacturers as a signal that Trump was committed to revitalizing American steel mills. It also signaled an overall mandate to reshore manufacturing in the country. While much of Wall Street warned that the tariffs would cause a widespread recession, a former critic of the tariffs, Torsten Slok, chief economist at Apollo Global Management, did an about-face and wondered if Trump outsmarted everyone, laying out a scenario that keeps tariffs well below Trump's most aggressive rates long enough to ease uncertainty. That a steelworker or a welder working for a defense contractor would watch what happened to Iran's nuclear program and feel a part of it is a nuance in American journalism that is often missed. Sen. David McCormick (R-Pa.) told the Washington Examiner that it is an integrated story, both in terms of the consequences of those decisions, bolstering our economic capability and our independence. "But it's a confidence in leadership story too," McCormick said. McCormick, who took office in January after winning against an entrenched Democrat few thought he could defeat, said the nuance of how intertwined moments such as these are is often missed. "These are reinforcing themes," he said. https://hotair.com/salena-zito/2025/07/05/a-very-consequential-two-weeks-for-donald-trumps-presidency-n3804482

Never like that is it cheapened the record. If sacks were counted before 1982 Deacon Jones would have the record with 26 sacks in 1967 (in 14 games).