GaryPinC

Amazing. Let's back up a minute and consider culture. Team culture comes from many areas. The owners, GM, front office, coaches, players, and finally the fans. Each of these may have a positive, negative or neutral influence on the culture. It's undeniable your front office has to bring in talent, especially a quarterback, and your coaches have to use it effectively over years for sustained success. But how much the owners, GM, front office, coaches, and players put the success of the team first, as a group, will determine long term success. What about the Ravens winning superbowls with Dilfer and Flacco? No elite QB's there, just elite defenses because of their hard-nosed team culture. New England: Cassel, Garappolo, and Brissett. The other quarterbacks who went in for Brady. How'd they do? How'd they do when they left New England? That's a winning culture. Seattle: Legion of Boom, Carrol wasn't just about his quarterback Pittsburgh and the Pack: if you deny the culture these teams have or have had until recently, it's probably pointless to discuss with you. Let's instead look at our Bills: What culture did Ralph instill while he owned the team? Only lucked out having one good GM and managed to run him out of town. Or hiring Buddy Nix to be GM? Constantly interfering with the front office, mostly bad judgement in hiring coaches, GM's. Conservative with spending if the team was not winning. That's a culture setter commiserate with the team's lack of success. Most good GM's knew they didn't want a boss like that. That's a huge cultural hit, much like the Cleveland Browns have enjoyed before Haslem hired Dorsey and stepped out of the way. When did the culture in Cleveland finally change? With Dorsey and the day Haslem finally let him fire Hue Jackson. Plus, Greggo was rightly given the boot after the season because that would be some bad culture to retain. Greggo did preside over the success of the Browns last year. Back to the Bills super bowl years. Good front office, Levy. Bickering Bills. They worked it out in the locker room, the culture improved and away they went. Kelly had already been in place since 1986, yes? 12-4 in 88, 9-7 in 89 bicker, bicker. The players united the locker room and set the culture by 1990. Hello super bowls. What say you to this prime example of team culture being important?

You can debate the importance of culture all you like, but winning is NOT culture. And certainly culture alone will not guarantee winning, talent is also needed. What teams do you feel have won consistently (5 years or more) with a bad culture? Certainly winning will encourage the culture but winning will not be sustained in a bad culture. Seahawks: Yes, they did develop the culture first. Pete Carroll game to the Seahawks in 2010. Took his culture and roster turnover 2 years to get going. There's plenty of articles on it https://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/17555/renowned-psychologist-impressed-with-seahawks-culture-of-grit http://old.seattletimes.com/html/seahawks/2022617012_seahawks08xml.html So ironic you use the Patriots. Belichick came in 2000 and is all about the culture. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/13/bill-belichick-leadership-rules.html https://cbssportsradio.radio.com/articles/former-player-discusses-bill-belichick-new-england-patriots-culture https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinandjackiefreiberg/2019/02/04/the-belichick-brady-way-10-lessons-from-the-patriots-about-the-art-of-execution/#28f98a854c68 https://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/1791312 https://www.complex.com/sports/2018/05/current-former-patriots-respond-pats-culture-fun Green Bay: Look at the turmoil with their front office the last two years. They still have Aaron Rodgers. Why are they not winning? How about cultural issues and a culture shift in the front office? Certainly their FO may not be bringing in enough talent but there's been a distinct culture shift at the top. https://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2019/05/09/silverstein-critics-see-cracks-green-bay-packers-new-management-structure/1142267001/ https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/11/29/green-bay-packers-problems-aaron-rodgers-mike-mccarthy-ted-thompson And you left out the Steelers, one of the strongest culture driven teams in the NFL. Last year the breakdown of that culture was deeply concerning for former players and fans. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001027011/article/eventful-offseason-puts-pittsburgh-steelers-culture-in-spotlight It'll be interesting to see how they do this year if they recover their culture with an aging Roethlisberger.

I'll try and show you tonight why I feel the robe triangles are not the same. I'm not very good at pulling parts of images and I'll need to do it at home. It's not about politics for me either. I'm fed up with either party. As far as some of your pyramid pictures, check this link out which accounts for almost all your people making the triangle with both hands. https://illuminatisymbols.info/roc-sign/ It signifies Jay Z's Roc Nation entertainment company not some ancient occult. It seems a number of celebrities, including Warren Buffet, flashed it at Jay Z's 40/40 club opening in 2012. My point to you is that perhaps things are not always as widespread as they seem.

First off, I certainly commend you for being on point with Epstein and the pedo problem in this country. It is shocking and undeniable to me. The pedo symbols I have only learned about through this thread, so thank you for that also. These symbols were carefully chosen by pedos and their purpose is explained well in the FBI document. The symbols on the cloth are NOT the same as the standard pedo symbols. The cloth is a normal open swirl inside a triangle, not the scribble with subtle but distinct characteristics. You want to claim this is a new pedo symbol, fine, but provide some proof. The reason I draw distinction is that circular swirl symbols are indeed commonplace, but that doesn't mean they are placed there by a pedo. What has happened already is overzealous targeting of reputable pizza restaurants and donut shops, and that should bother you and anyone who considers themselves intellectually honest.

You're right, when I mag it up all the way it's a bit obscured so I'm less certain but it still does appear to be a triangle with a smiley face near the bottom. Do you know what it is? I used it because it looks even less like the FBI pedo symbols to me.

The only one who has no f-ing clue about bird hunting is you. You are unlikely to die, but the chance of getting shot can be very large. Once a covey of quail go up, 3 dimensionally they can and will fly any direction except straight into the ground. It is hard enough to gun track a single bird in that chaos, let alone decide if a shot is safe in those couple seconds before the bird is out of range. Hunter party positions and safe shooting angles are worked out before the flush ever happens. Cheney's buddy went back to the truck and popped back unannounced at the moment a covey flushes. Incredibly bad luck but he should have announced himself well before then. But, to throw you a bone, they claimed Cheney shot him at 50 yards, which is garbage as the 9 shot probably couldn't even break skin at that range. The pattern spread (lower face and torso) and chest wall penetration suggest to me the shot occured around 15-20yards.

Thanks I saw those and neither match up to the symbol on the cloth. The cloth symbol is different.

That head is very disturbing but the symbols on the cloth are a triangle with a circular spiral or even wave inside of them, not a known pedophile symbol. The triangle on the forehead actually has a smiley face inside of it. I don't know what it means but the symbols do not appear to be what you imply they are. Certainly the artist has an odd way of drawing hands but I don't see 6 fingers on any of them. The "scorpions" are shoe laces, on the original painting they are less defined than your posted images making me wonder if someone's been taking some artistic liberty.

There's no doubt a certain percent of players are going to try and hide a concussion, especially mild. But these days there are standardized protocols, mandatory checks for obvious blows to the head and baseline control testing players much match if it is suspected they sustained a concussion. You make it sound like there's a large amount of players hiding their concussions and I truly doubt that. All of sports are far more cautious and proactive about it then even 10 years ago.

The story says the families were neighbors. I guess the mailman delivered to the wrong mailbox that day. Just disgusting and I don't know anyone involved but it makes sense that Malone would try like hell to avoid all involvement in this because he did commit a crime.

No worries, work and life certainly get in the way of me contributing on here more frequently. Safe travels.

You'll have to forgive me, I'm not following your train of thought. The second amendment allows us the right to protect ourselves, our families and homes, and our country against any foreign invader. Most importantly, it gives us the means to overthrow our government if enough of us feel it strongly necessary. If someone is wrongly jailed or denied their liberty, I wouldn't consider that a direct relationship to the second amendment. Please explain? WRT guns, I did not say there were no guns involved in the coup process. My words: "but fail to realize it did not involve their guns in any way" refer to the gun rights we enjoy across this great country. The coup did not compromise our basic gun rights in any way.

Maybe, but more importantly they've all been brainwashed to believe any gun regulation (safety training cert, background checks, etc) is an infringement on their right to own a gun and will inevitably lead to the government coming to take them. They fail to realize every other constitutional freedom we enjoy comes with regulation and responsibility. It's essential in a country of nearly 400 million. They believe in the recent coup attempt but fail to realize it did not involve their guns in any way. They fail to realize in 2008 DC vs Heller, the SCOTUS formally recognized the right of the individual to own guns for self protection, particularly handguns as the popular choice. They fail to realize that SCOTUS recognized the right for reasonable regulation but even at the local level the citizen's right to own a gun must not be denied. So,the left cannot ban hand guns, only exotic weapons. But neither side wants to acknowledge this as they would have to change their extreme narratives.

Among the least surprising news ever. Hope they learn from this to improve their "suicide watch" ?/sarc

Considering separation of powers, and the fact that SCOTUS had ruled the 2nd amendment to be an individual right, I doubt the feds do much regulating of state national guards, considering the feds have banned automatic weapons and assault rifles at various times, plus prohibit felons from owning guns, I'd say it's both guns and people they can regulate.

But they can be regulated as necessary. As interpreted by the SCOTUS, allowed under article 3 of the Constitution.

Nope, all your attempts to characterize my argument are completely off point and irrelevant. The SCOTUS, the final legal authority on interpreting the Constitution, has ruled that the individual has the right to keep and bear arms and that governments have the right to regulate them and already do. No matter what you think, this IS the legally correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment until that amendment is revoked/changed or a future supreme Court strikes it down. Which just isn't going to happen. Here's an easy link summarizing federal regulation efforts of guns:https://m.dw.com/en/8-facts-about-gun-control-in-the-us/a-40816418 Obviously there's many more state and local laws. I rejoiced in 2008 with DC vs Heller because SCOTUS finally stepped up and shot down the left's "only for militia" argument and set a legal precedent every lower court must follow. Requiring training for licensing to buy a gun is not unconstitutional as per the SCOTUS decisions (Heller, McDonald vs Chicago) making your argument 100% wrong.

Really? Supreme Court decision DC vs Heller, upholding the 2nd amendment. Page 2: "2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56." This of the majority opinion supporting the second amendment. A nice way to show that you are 100% wrong.

No. Anti gunners' words carry more weight when no one takes any common sense steps to improve the situation.

The people who want total gun bans will push for that regardless. As will the pro-NRA paranoids fight any regulation. How about most of us in the middle stop letting them inhibit the common sense responsibilities which should have been instituted long ago?

http://www.pbs.org/pov/dreamdeceivers/ Yep, I remember watching this documentary with my dad back in 92 on PBS. The tone was typical "heavy metal bad", "kids today....", but they guy dug into the situation enough it became plainly obvious the two young men were pretty screwed up from their family life.

Right on, with freedom comes responsibility. Except when you want to buy/own a gun, then we fight responsibility tooth and nail. I say this as someone who owns and uses 5 guns.

Francisco Lindor, Indians shortstop

You're dead on about every single thing you've said about Peterman. I hope at some point you laugh at the stupidity of human stubbornness in the face of reality rather than getting annoyed by it.

Any lawyers here able to provide perspective? Looking very basically at the US code, specifically 1503 and 1505 of Title 18, to be guilty of attempted obstruction, the alleged offender would have to attempt to interfere directly or with someone directly involved with the investigation or the justice/trial process. I suppose in 1505, if Trump were to influence/order his staff to make efforts to interfere, Trump could be found guilty via Congress's 1996 clarification of "corruptly". It seems to me, it would have to be proven that Trump was serious in his efforts, the target would have to follow through with an obstruction attempt or suffer a job loss/punishment if they disobeyed Trump? Just hoping for some real world perspective on how "attempted obstruction" is determined to be a crime if the attempt is indirect. https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1725-protection-government-processes-obstruction-pending-proceeding-18