4merper4mer

Dang am I off topic again?

1. I don’t have to guess unless all your posts are “Opposite Day” posts. I attribute no motives, sweeping or otherwise. Motives require multi-step processes often exceeding three steps, so I can’t see attributing any motives on your part. 2. Perhaps you missed that the article was already erased from this thread once. It reappeared and despite it be directly related to the thread’s topic, you made a pronouncement from on high that it was not.

The thread’s OP is about Butker’s speech. One can safely assume that articles discussing the speech, opinions about it, and ramifications of it are on topic. This article Is written in direct response to Butker’s speech. I’m not sure how a logical person could consider it off topic. I’m guessing you didn’t find any articles linking Butker to Elvis’ love child but if you did, post away. I can see why a demonstration of the silliness advocated by someone of your political persuasion would make you more sensitive than you already are, but as I’ve mentioned, I don’t personally put people into groups. This means I understand that you may not share the opinion of the article’s author. You needn’t deflect and wish to censor opinions that make “your side” look bad. You didn’t write the article so it doesn’t make you look bad or silly. Granted, you’ve done enough on your own already, but the article reflects poorly on its author, not you. Your convoluted reasoning in favor of censorship is something that you own though. With all that said I don’t mind the idea of the Chiefs signing a female kicker for public relations purposes. I say they should do it but the choice is theirs.

Percentage chance that article is written if Butker didn’t give his commencement speech? And you can’t fire enough synapses to connect the two things? And now women are golden retrievers?

It’s literally an article about the topic of the thread. But you don’t think it’s on topic? If someone posted a picture of grass in a “green things” thread would you lecture them too?

I pointed out that we lost several leaders that have serious demeanors and retained the goofball personalities. That could create a real leadership void. Was Morse the only viable option to create cap space? Was personality conflict involved in the equation? We don’t know this but we do know that Morse and Diggs are serious while Dion, Josh, and Knox are goofy. Maybe Josh leaned on the more mature people too much and management decided to force him to grow up a little by creating a void. That is why I’m not expecting a great start to the season but am hopeful for a good second half with a more complete Josh who is focused on being his best at his profession.

IMO it’s not so much verbal as the demeanor. He needs to come off as serious. It’s ok to have fun and he can’t lose his personality but it can’t be all fun all the time and then Mr. pouty on the sidelines when someone like Diggs wants to win. A lot has been made of Diggs/Allen falling out or whatever it was but the part that makes me curious is Morse. He’s a serious guy who is serious about his craft and out the door he went. Salary cap? Sure but why not rework it? I thought he might retire because of the concussion stuff but he signed elsewhere in six minutes. Maybe Diggs wasn’t the only one frustrated with Josh’s approach.

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.

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.

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.

You’d have a better chance of burying a $100 bill in your yard and a money tree sprouting.

I did mistake the ESPN guy’s quote as being from the attorney. My bad.

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.

I’m not an attorney but publicly mocking an arresting officer seems like a bad strategy to me.

The following is directed more at Forbes and the “study” they cited than at you:

Poor people are never happy? Money = happiness?

He failed to understand that I called Dr. K “Doc” but I’m not supposed to question reading comprehension? Shirley.

Not inherently.

Be careful backing Bill into a corner like that because he may respond harshly. Bill HATES corners.

I had potholes listed at #5 but should point out that they’re not always bad. Sometimes potholes send a spandex mafia member flying.

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.

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.

Oh look everyone…..someone who actually acknowledges the right of someone to state their own opinions even if he thinks the other person’s opinions are foolish. And look…..he focused on the opinion, not the speaker’s race, religion, economic status or some other group lumping. Hey Doc, wouldn’t it have been easier if you just called him rich or defined rich as making 300k or inferred the opinions of others for simply pointing that out? Sure it might be weak minded but at least you could avoid all that mind exercising that made it stronger.

You are fixated primarily on his income, then his beliefs, then your own conclusions about his beliefs. Then, after all of that, you’ve somehow made conclusions about what I think when I’ve offered no opinion about Butker’s speech whatsoever. In fact, I haven’t even read it and likely wont. I simply observed the venom spewed at him…..not his opinion…..based on his income. I’ll agree or disagree with the opinions of any person based on the opinion itself, not based on lumping that person into some category like you’ve repeatedly done as did the poster to whom I originally responded. None of this has a damn thing to do with Butker’s income despite the apparent raging jealousy you harbor that induces you to twist around the real topic at hand. Butker has the right to his own opinions whether they’re brilliant, moronic, or anywhere in between. So too do the people you’d incorrectly assume I’d like to stop from speaking. I might call someone a moron but I’m careful not to lump that moron into some group as if it has some causal effect. Your irrational post above continues your obsession with “the rich”. Get over it dude. You’ve also decided that people’s who have different definitions of rich than yours are full of “utter bs”. Get over yourself.