The Frankish Reich

I know this is a somewhat different point, but we're seeing that blocking by "skill positions" players is really important. Lots of folks here hate it, but that's something PFF takes into account when they score players - they look at every play and whether the player succeeded in what appears to be his assigned role. Cook whiffing on blocks, some receiver putting in a bad effort on a block on a screen, etc. If our pass catchers aren't blocking effectively on screens and the screen fails, that's on them, not Dorsey.

Stupid, out of context tweet. I watched it - did Erin Burnett really suggest it was like a hotel? No. She said this to show that Hamas had prepared everything for the taking of hostages, including hoarding supplies in underground tunnels. Oh, and maybe to make those relatives of unreleased hostages feel a little better about the conditions their loved ones are being held in. But there's a cheap political point to be made, so what the hell, let's make it.

He was wide open deep against NE, but Josh seemed to forget that he's 5'6" and not 6'4" ...

Someone's been thinking about chicks with, umm, something special just a little too much.

A rare moment of agreement between Irv and Justice: it's all a conspiracy! Biden was behind it to improve his electoral chances. No! Israel was behind it to have an excuse to invade Gaza! The horseshoe theory of politics. The far right and far left are merging.

I agree with you. But you're missing my point. Dems = consistent position on cuts to entitlements: No cuts. We will deal with it (tax increases, probably, plus other things like raising the full social security entitlement age again) when the crisis comes. Repubs = inconsistent position. Deficit hawks in control of the House, a big-time deficit spender as the presidential candidate. It is fair to question "so what DO you want the government to do if you win?"

The embedded tweet actually softballs it. He didn't just "imply" that he thinks cutting Social Security and Medicare is necessary. He flat-out said it. By the way, this seems to have been in early 2019 as he's identified as "Chairman Elect" of the Republican Study Committee, and he became Chairman in 2019. So while I don't think he's wrong - in my opinion, we do need to consider how to rein in spending on all entitlement programs - there's no denying that he does want to cut these programs. Interesting what will happen when this runs up against Trump's "pretend the problem doesn't exist" campaign.

Fuzz Busters, Sears runs ... kind of a long time ago...

And that's where we are in America. Insane conspiracy theories = today's Republican opposition.

No. They showed something called party discipline. The Republicans acted like little children — “if you don’t vote for one of us we are taking our ball and going home.”

Whose

I guess “libtards” are responsible for the Republican crapshow.

Right. Well played. UFC embraces its homoerotic appeal. Or to be woke, I guess it wouldn’t be homoerotic with a trans woman. Maybe they’re still in denial.

Exactly what do the screwy 8 or whatever they’re called expect to happen? They couldn’t even get close with Jordan. Maybe they’re just auditioning for Fox hosting gigs.

The Cult said no. So he’s done. Read this and tell me it’s not a Cult as the leader speaks of himself in the third person: “I have many wonderful friends wanting to be Speaker of the House, and some are truly great Warriors,” Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social. “RINO Tom Emmer, who I do not know well, is not one of them. He never respected the Power of a Trump Endorsement, or the breadth and scope of MAGA—MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Yeah, in other words, the vast majority of the population of NY state ...

And I just called him Hands of Stone. I feel like I need to solicit opinions on my behavior on that AITA ("Am I The A..hole") subreddit.

I've been trying to come up with a similar situation for the US. In other words "Gaza is to Israel as [blank] is the the USA." The closest I can come up with: some of us remember (vaguely) the radical American Indian movement of the 1970s. Imagine if a radical faction committed to ejecting all people of European (and I suppose Asian/African too) ancestry from the United States had taken over the Navajo nation, and that some US adversary (the USSR) had taken to sending them arms. And imagine that this radical group didn't just run the Navajo tribal government; it also had an armed faction that carried out attacks against civilians in Arizona/Utah/Colorado/New Mexico, and that one of these attacks involved killing hundreds of civilians and taking a couple hundred hostage in the territory of the Navajo Nation. Q. What actions would the United States be justified in taking in response? What action would not be justified?

I'd agree if Israel's intention is to occupy Gaza AND "resettle" it with Jews, I'd agree with you. But I can't imagine (or at least I don't want to even consider) that that's the plan.

I wouldn't say that. "Ethnic cleansing" is a term that came out of the Balkan conflict, stemming from the idea that Serbia was attempting to eliminate its Muslim/Kosovar population. In other words, a country with a multi-ethnic population, trying to rid itself of one ethno-religious group. Gaza is, as I understand it, basically mono-cultural, so the idea of ethnic cleansing wouldn't apply. That's not to say that I think that what Israel is doing is just fine and dandy. There are good arguments that its certainly not. There is also a good arguments that Gaza is a semi-autonomous region governed by Hamas, a group that sent its fighters into Israel to kill and abduct civilians. In other words, it is, in fact, a country that started a war with its neighbor.

My take: - if we miss the playoffs, 80% chance McD (and probably Beane) is gone. - if we go one-and-done, 50% chance - if we make it to the AFCG, 0% chance That's just kind of the way it goes. If your team takes a significant step back, you're usually on thin ice.

If that's directed at me, well, no, I'm not that stupid. I don't believe that Israel was somehow behind terrorists raids that slaughtered hundreds of its citizens and took a couple hundred hostage. What I'm suggesting is that the Hamas raids have convinced Netanyahu that there is no such thing as peaceful coexistence with Gaza as it was before October 6, and that he is engaging in a scorched earth policy that will essentially eliminate Gaza as it was before October 6. There is no need for a conspiracy theory to explain the events of this month.

You know those reports that you scoffed at? The ones about how household wealth has increased by 30+ percent since 2019? Well that's the other side of the home affordability issue. Existing homeowners, particularly those in desirable markets, are sitting on goldmines. New home buyers lose out.

Controversial? Yes. But here's what I really think is going on: 1. Gaza has been problematic for Israel for a long time. They were happy to sort of wash their hands of it back in 2006. Egypt doesn't want anything to do with it either. The whole concept of the "refugee camps" in Gaza is absurd. Nowhere else in the world do we have this concept of multi-generational refugees. Palestinians were forcibly relocated to Gaza when the Arab states attacked Israel shortly after its formation. The children, and children's children, and children's children's children of these refugees continue to reside there with some vague notion that they will be resettled somewhere (they think Israel, where they came from) at some time in the future. Many have left by immigrating to other places (hence the Palestinians in the US), but no Arab country has invited them to resettle in large numbers for what is now 75 years. In other words, they were not going anywhere. 2. Until now, that is. Israel already has forcibly evacuated half of Gaza. And they are systematically bombing both the north and the south. This is ostensibly to root out Hamas targets, but the bombing is so widespread that I find it difficult to believe that they have good Intel that Hamas terrorists or command/control are located in every bombed location. 3. Therefore, I think Israel's true purpose is to force - finally, after 75 years - a relocation of people out of Gaza. Face facts: those who have left the north have nowhere to return to. Their homes and infrastructure are destroyed. And I have to assume that sooner or later the same will happen in the South. Israel is forcing a mass relocation of people out of Gaza. Again, ostensibly they are trying to root out/kill Hamas terrorists, but I think that involves neutralizing the threat from Gaza entirely by essentially depopulating it. Gaza has been an impediment to any two-state solution. Look at the two-state maps that have been proposed: there is no good way to connect up Gaza to the West Bank while preserving Israel's territorial integrity and security. Israel is sick and tired of having to deal with Gaza. This provides the opportunity to make it go away. 4. The endgame: I have no idea. I don't know if Israel has an idea. Having created a new displaced persons crisis, I posit that Israel is hoping that other countries (particularly Arab countries) will resettled Gazans. No doubt western countries will do so too as the humanitarian crisis becomes more and more obvious. I don't know what they think the official status of Gaza will be after this is all done. Israel probably has no interest in annexing it and taking the blowback from the US and world community. So perhaps occupying it again even though they don't want to. Maybe some Gazans will resettle in the West Bank. Israel (not Netanyahu, but most Israelis) can live with a Palestinian state in the West Bank once the Gaza "problem" is gone. I know I am being deliberately neutral about whether these things are warranted or even in violation of international law. I am just suggesting that there is more here than simply neutralizing Hamas in Gaza and allowing Gaza to continue to exist in something like its current status.

Yellow headed weirdo claims he never spoke to "red headed weirdo" about nuclear subs. https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-claims-he-never-spoke-to-billionaire-red-haired-weirdo-about-nuclear-submarines