All_Pro_Bills

That's a tough question. In my view this adventure was destined to be a disaster from the beginning. You just need to look at the DC team's party neutral record of consistent foreign policy failures and blunders to understand that expectation. So anyone that reflexively buys into the story lines peddled by our government is going to end up disappointed more often than not. Whether they can reconcile their unquestioned obedience and belief with the reality of that outcome is doubtful. They'll go down swinging insisting it was the right thing to do regardless of the result. Any foreign leader that jumps into bed with the DC establishment like the Ukrainian leadership has under Zelensky to engage your country in a proxy war of attrition with one of Washington's adversaries should understand from the start that a happy ending in these situations is a rarity. Over time administrations change, policies change, priorities change, arrangements and alliances change too. Eventually, they'll sell you out like they do everyone else they have in the past.

Some serious re-evaluation of consistently neglecting key positions on offense is required. What I fear more than anything is that Josh Allen's legacy is going to end up being similar to what Domink Hasek was for the Sabres. An all-world, once in a generation type player they failed to build around that had his career more or less wasted here by a management team that just couldn't get the job done. A common theme, neglect of the offense. Fix the line, improve the pass and run blocking, get a true no. 2 receiver. No and's, if's, or but's. Get it done.

Now you're resorting to a demand I prove something? I could demand the same. But I didn't say Biden controls the media. I don't believe Biden is in control of his personal thoughts and mental abilities. I think its clear he suffers from one or more of a class of neurological diseases that attack and degrade a person's mental abilities over the course of the illness. Its a horrible condition and I take no pleasure in his situation or wish it on anyone. I've had the unfortunate experience of helping to care for a family member experiencing this terrible condition until their eventual death so I can spot it a mile away. Just the President's physical posture, gait, and movement is a clear tell of the condition. And I expect others having had similar experiences as mine can spot it too. The fact almost every media outlet across the board ignores the obvious while flying cover should at a minimum provide some clues and perhaps lead to some questioning of their motivations.

That's a very weak counter argument, equivalent to capitulation, to my conclusion that Biden's party and Putin's party both control their domestic media.

You have it backwards. The Democrats and Putin share the common trait. They both control and love the media.

That is funny. Funnier is how the CCP and Democrats employ the same tactics and strategies that use mainstream and social media to spread disinformation and propaganda while censoring dissenting views. It's almost like they attended the same Ivy League universities and took the same classes taught by the same professors. Oh, wait. They did!

I think Josh's biggest problem is his biggest asset which is the ability to make the "hero ball" play. He's so confident in that ability I think it causes him to believe he can do almost the impossible so he holds onto the ball too long and take too many hits and pass up the easy play or short gain to move the chains or get some positive yardage. With most other QB's, the thought of attempting to make some sort of out of this world play doesn't even go through their minds. They just instinctively dump it off or take the sure thing. The first couple games of the season he was doing the little things but he regressed during the season and the coaches never settled him back into it or reined in those plays. The Bills problems are the talent level of the players that surround Allen and if you put Mahomes (or Burrow or any other top QB) on the Bills offense the result isn't going to be better, It would probably be worse. You take the starting 10 of the offense excluding the QB position of the Bills, Chiefs, and Bengals and choose the best starter at each of the 10 other positions and how many Bills do you pick? Maybe Diggs. The 3 of the other 10 Chase, Kelsey, Higgins. How about the offensive line and the RB position?

Is it me or do these quotes from Chinese official sound a lot like Democrats? 😲

Social activists make bad administrators because being good at criticizing others isn't a core competency for a job requiring the skills and experience to actually getting things done.

My anonymous sources are telling me the NYT anonymous sources are full of crap.

You can feel the desperation when they come out of the gate swinging the Nazi card at a Hispanic woman.

Philly fans are likely too busy rioting in the streets to offer up any commentary yet..

After that holding call I turned off the game because the call right or wrong just gifted the Chiefs the game. There was no suspense left at that point. We all knew it was going to end on a short last second field goal attempt and make. And whether or not the holding offense met the criteria it was the first defensive holding penalty against a secondary player in the game. I'll guess anybody analyzing the film will see they let similar "holds" go for 58 1/2 minutes. Instead of the Chiefs kicking the FG and seeing if the Eagles can drive down to tie or win the game the clock gets milked down to a few seconds for a chip shot field goal for a less than dramatic finish vs. the excitement and challenge the alternative ending would provide.

The problem is its hard to create what performers are driven to provide which is an over-the-top 10 minutes of "artistic creativity" rather than come out and just perform a couple of their familiar songs. At this point after so many past Super Bowl performances, none of it comes off as original or provocative. The costumes appeared cartoonish and the performance wasn't very inspiring. For Rihanna this performance was far from her best. And of course all the critics and commentators loved it because that's what they're obligated to say and their comments can't stray too far outside the lines of acceptable opinion.

I'm good with investigating and sending both Jerod and Hunter along with anyone implicated in any illegal dealings to trial & jail. But there are a lot of bad actors in government and media running interference for these guys. Lock them up too I say. Can we all agree with that approach?

Specific and individual risk assessment with the patient and their doctor wasn't something authorities cared about. Rather they were intent on imposing their one solution, which was insisting on the population getting vaccinated with a vaccine that doesn't produce immunity. Rather protection against severe illness and hospitalization. Two things you won't find as either primary or secondary endpoint goal of either the original Pfizer or Moderns trials. And rather than patient consent with an understanding of risks of either taking the shot or not, coercion was employed. And some wonder why many are skeptical and distrust the medical community and officials.

So these experts guarantee the risk of any long term impacts is zero?

If I recall correctly, in the first couple game against the Rams and Titans Josh took the short stuff, and it worked pretty well but as the season wore on that disappeared.

Their contention is "free speech" can be dangerous because it can be hurtful to some and disinformation to others. The social good vs. the rights of the individual dilemma. And therefore, some regulation and limits need to be applied. Of course that conclusion whether true or not, leaves out the discussion of the most important parts. Namely, how is what is allowed and not allowed decided, to whom is it harmful, how is it harmful, and most critical, who gets to decide what can and cannot be spoken, written, or displayed. Now if there was some social agreement defined from open and honest consideration of all points of views on what constitutes free and "allowable" speech that might be something most people across the social and political spectrum might be able to get behind. But when special interests or a specific political group with a specific political agenda, in secret, and without any transparency, get to decide for everyone, along with performing the act of censoring and censuring those that "speak" outside the acceptable boundaries that they create and operate in secret, that's another story. All while claiming its "fair" while consciously understanding they are lying. What it comes down to is the self-appointed censors decide to shut down people they don't like saying things they don't like. All their fancy talk and elaborate excuses can't hide that reality.

Of course she's lying! Because anyone who doesn't demonstrate 100% agreement, obedience, and support for all US government actions and policies while demonstrating 100% disagreement with anyone the government views as an enemy is a traitor. A misinformed traitor spreading disinformation and infecting the American collective with false narratives and debunked conspiracy theories. Most likely working for some foreign adversary or a supporter of "insurrectionists" or other "bad" actors. Putting Americans in danger and emboldening our adversaries (all the buzz words and terms from the playbook). While you legitimately act as a free citizen of the Republic with rights to dissent and expression your views such as those freedoms provided by the US Constitution the government and its supporters and allies such as those in the media view you as a subject of the government and the ruling elite. Do what you're told and shut up. This is the argument they will use against you if you speak out against or question anything. Its the only defense they can muster. Certain posters use it on this PPP board.

I'll concede there are exceptions but as a matter of practice they are also driven by science. In this case inconclusive science. But woke religion doesn't address ambiguous cases but rather people that reject their biological gender for a belief in something else. In these "I think I'm a women therefore I am" cases the gender is not ambiguous and the biological gender is clear yet people ignore reality. Just like those 10,000 year old Earth folks the left loves to snicker at. Its the same denial of reality at work.

I think anyone that prefers to apply logic, fact-based techniques of thinking, and things like the principles of physical science would conclude these people are rejecting reality in the face of evidence that renders their beliefs as false. Yet for some reason they might choose to cling to them. Why they would do that is something to explore. Faith is the answer I see most. This leads me to ponder the belief system of current social movements. I propose applying the same criteria to the American Woke movement, which after examination I conclude is a belief system that meets the criteria of a religion. Namely, dismissing scientific fact and logic. Start with the concept that they believe a man can be a women simply by believing. And attack anyone that disagrees. But genetic and biological facts invalidate their belief. Yet they cling to them. For me, that's consistent with a Christian cited in the example above believing the Earth is 10,000 years old when confronted with geological and scientific facts. So why do some that reject traditional or unique religious beliefs because they can be factually disproved believe in or fail to critique woke religious beliefs that can also be factually disproven?

The BS part is all these experts deluding themselves into believing they can control anything.

The social justice police request the use of proper pronouns or you'll end up living in a van down by the river!

Ask them why they still live at the beach and in urban areas along the coasts if they know and believe sea levels are rising?