Jump to content

4merper4mer

Community Member
  • Posts

    20,664
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About 4merper4mer

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Indiana

Recent Profile Visitors

6,763 profile views

4merper4mer's Achievements

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer (8/8)

7.5k

Reputation

  1. It’s a minor point but Kaep was also being directed by his commie girlfriend. He’s not really all that bright on his own. It’s also possible that Butker is being guided by his wife, a pastor or another.
  2. What a load. You put words in someone’s mouth by predicting they will put words in your mouth then get upset about it. For Pete’s sake.
  3. This is a four page thread and you are early to post. Having not read through yet my guess is that you’ll take heat for observing Josh was less than perfect last year. Third rail stuff. My take is that 2024 will be a transition year for Allen. I’m more interested in the end than the beginning. The Bills lost an absolute ton of serious leadership. Diggs, Morse, even Davis on the O. Poyer on the D. We also lost Tre who was a definite leader but with more of a fun personality type. The O leaders that are left: Josh, Dawkins, Brown, Knox…..they are all goofballs. IMO we badly need Hyde for one more year. 2024 will require adaptability on Josh’s part in that he will have to be the adult in the room at times. He has never had to be that. We’ll see if he can do it. Part of me wonders if Beane is playing 3D chess to force the issue by picking up malcontents like Claypool and MVS. Too much comfort zone is bad for Josh. I’d like to see him pissed off more frequently and Claypool will piss just about anyone off. He is also expendable. Allen has all the ability and on field desire that can be imagined. Will he maximize his ability by making good decisions, preparing properly and leading? My best guess is that the first half of the season is disappointing and bewildering. I’m hopeful for the second half and even more hopeful for 2025 but he needs to get serious first. Time to grow up.
  4. You’d have a better chance of burying a $100 bill in your yard and a money tree sprouting.
  5. I did mistake the ESPN guy’s quote as being from the attorney. My bad.
  6. He seems to be subtly making light of the officer noting his uniform pants were ripped. “I’ve never in all my years……”. Either: 1. The officer was truly dragged to the ground and his pants ripped, in which case the damage to pants might not be a big deal but knocking an officer to the ground certainly seems to be. Nothing to make fun of there. Or 2. The officer was not really dragged to the ground so the pants weren’t really ripped at all. Why not focus on the truth of the report as a whole and leave the pants out of it? To me he seems to deny the main portion of the police report but also acknowledge……in a mocking way……the pants being damaged. That seems dumb.
  7. I’m not an attorney but publicly mocking an arresting officer seems like a bad strategy to me.
  8. The following is directed more at Forbes and the “study” they cited than at you:
  9. He failed to understand that I called Dr. K “Doc” but I’m not supposed to question reading comprehension? Shirley.
  10. Be careful backing Bill into a corner like that because he may respond harshly. Bill HATES corners.
  11. I had potholes listed at #5 but should point out that they’re not always bad. Sometimes potholes send a spandex mafia member flying.
  12. Failed again. I will repeat….I responded to a post by EII that did not comment on Butker’s speech. It only mentioned Butker’s economic status. Therefore the contents of his speech were not relevant to my response. It also did not mention the color of Butker’s car or the length of Butker’s hair, so I left those out too. How could I “spin it” into class warfare, when economic status was the entirety of the post to which I responded? There was nothing else in there at all. It was 100% about economic status to begin with. Your reading comprehension remains poor. Your last paragraph is pretty twisted dude. I haven’t defended “the rich”. I defended Butker’s right to speak as he sees fit. You, the arbiter of all things economic, have defined Butker as rich so you’ve reached a poor conclusion again. He’s a person. I’d also defend the right of a person you define as poor, short, tall, straight, gay, black, white or whatever else to speak. Keep defining people in ways that dehumanize them if you’d like, but pardon me if I don’t. I’ll even say that people that use racist tropes in a screen name and avatar should be able to speak their mind, even when barely literate. I consider the right to free speech important so limiting it for anyone is dangerous.
  13. I replied to Dr. K and called him Doc. What part of that has anything to do with my reading comprehension? It seems to me that yours is a bit off……still. As for the rest of your poorly written post…..I tried hard to decipher your “English” and failed. For instance you said “….reminding you of some opinions you willing share”. I can’t answer that because I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. I concur that I wrote something that could be considered a diatribe, but it was not irrelevant. Butker’s wealth is irrelevant yet was the only thing mentioned by EII. He in no way focused on anything Butker said…..only his wealth. You then decided to define “rich” for all of us. I was trying to point out that the thread was meant to be primarily about the speech, not the speaker, or at least that I thought that made more sense. I admittedly did it in an indirect way and this sailed waaaaaaaaay over your head. That is why I asked about your reading comprehension. In the future when replying to you I will try to use small words.
×
×
  • Create New...