The Frankish Reich

So the playbook had Diggs blocking on a lot of passing plays? It showed Diggs' routes but had an asterisk saying *to be used a maximum of once per game?

Can we just undo the trade and get Justin Jefferson after all?

2020: the guy cares so much about winning, he actually gets such intense butterflies that he throws up before every game! 2023: the guy is the anti-Joe Montana, he's a bundle of nerves, throwing up before every game!

Well, I have no idea about whether your sources are credible or not. But the general take? Yeah, that makes some sense.

Unpopular take: Adam Thielen was actually the #1 receiver for those Vikes teams.

Saved me a trip to urban dictionary.

Jerry Sullivan? No. I don't think he's lying. But didn't literally every Bills fan say something like this: "Diggs is a great addition, but let's hope that he leaves that diva behavior behind in Minnesota." I suspect he's giving "Fitz told me" a little more weight than it warrants.

True. But that was in the days when the media left a politician's private life alone, unless it was the classic "caught with a dead girl or a live boy." More recently: We've seen things that are public, are clear and obvious, that violated long-established behavioral norms that would have traditionally destroyed a politician, now seemingly irrelevant to voters.

Like Fitzy would ever let himself be dragged into this? Maybe Case Keenum or a career journeyman with a 25 Wonderlic, but not Fitzy ...

If only I were a former local newspaper Bills columnist. Oh, the fun I'd be having now: - Matt Barkley told me Josh Allen wouldn't be the humble country boy forever, and that sooner or later he'd go Hollywood and want out of Buffalo - Doug Whaley told me that Sean McDermott is a fine Xs and Os guy but that he wouldn't ever be seen as Super Bowl quality leader - Rex Ryan told me that Leslie Frazier couldn't hold Buddy Ryan's jockstrap

The Diggs Heel Turn does make the June doldrums a little more interesting, doesn't it ...

I wonder what other said-to-me-in-confidence, completely unconfirmable revelations ol' Jerry will be sharing with us.

This is getting downvoted, but deep down inside I suspect most of us believe it's true.

Teams go through a cycle. They start young, everyone is hungry for success, they bond through struggles and see the rewards of what hard work and perseverance will bring. The Bills had that magical moment from the time Diggs arrived until some time last season. Then that idea of everyone pulling in the same direction, everyone sacrificing individual stats/attention for the good of the team started to erode. I just watched the Nuggets win the NBA championship. They are where the Bills were a couple years ago, but with a better ending to their season. They're my NBA team, and I probably should be more optimistic. But in my head I know that this era of good feeling won't last forever. In fact, if a couple key guys leave for more money this offseason, and things start a little rough next year, the whole Ted Lasso thing will become a distant memory. Just look at this scene from Miami after the Nuggets lost Game 2 at home. "Uncle Jeff" Green, 36 years old, veteran of multiple teams, has the team over to his Miami house for dinner. A magical moment - Peak Nuggets! Everyone pulling together to say it's all right, we got this - that I somehow think won't happen again.

Right. Over. Your. Head.

Who would've thought that the righties are now in favor of their own form of ESG investment.

I have an in-law who's doing the same thing. He never drank Bud Light, but now he's researching what other products Anheuser Busch has bought out. Guess what? They got his favorite microbrew! He won't drink that now. Sometimes having a beer is just having a beer, and not making a political statement one way or the other. Many years ago a college friend's parents refused to drive German cars because of Nazi connections. They bought him a Saab. I think he really wanted an Audi, but he had to drive a Saab. Quite a way to live your life.

I thought you deemed this thread closed? What's next, performative ignorance in the manner of our carpetbagging Tarheeler? I can hardly wait. EDIT: mic drop ineffective when speaker bends down to pick up mic and adds, "and just one more thing ..."

[At this point, The Frankish Reich suddenly realizes he has been attempting to engage in a rational discussion with "Chris Farley," remembers who Chris Farley was, realizes why poster has chosen such name, and aborts further attempts]

Well, this is a list of things that disgust you. Which ones should be available to children with parental consent, and at what age? And if certain things (you mention pornography) shouldn't be available to children below a certain age, what efforts should the state make to ensure that? Should everyone have to register with a website, showing ID, authorizing a search of your credit history? These are good and important questions. Again ... think! Don't just do the old man sideways wave of disgust.

Here's what I'm trying to get you to think about. Stop resisting; I think you can do it. There's two things going on in this thread. - There's disgust, and perhaps a little eye-rolling fun, about various things that are thought to be gross excesses of the LGBTQ acceptance movement. That's o.k. People are allowed some of that. I don't particularly like when it's mean-spirited, but making fun of going topless at the White House is fair game. So are a lot of other things here. - There's also a bleed-over into law and politics. That's where you should be ready to have a reasoned discussion. If you honor the rights of parents to decide what's best for their children, then be ready to argue when and why the government should be allowed to override parental choices for their children. If you ask me the same kinds of questions I asked you, I will be happy to give a reasoned response, based on some kind of moral philosophy and grounded in U.S. constitutional law. So if you're doing "disgust" or "making fun of excess," well, just say that. But I'm seeing disgust turning into proposed legislation all over the place. And that's when we should have a fair fight. That's the American tradition.

Well at least this one should be right up your alley: D. You are appalled by the creation of "LGBTQ+ Summer Camps" for kids. You do not believe parents should have the right to send their LGBTQ+-identifying children to such camps, even if both parents want to do so; therefore, you would be in favor of a Wisconsin state law banning such camps. In California, some parents of LGBTQ+-identifying children wish to enroll those kids in "conversion therapy." California has sought to ban this. Is California justified in seeking to override the choice of the child's parents? If not, then why would Wisconsin be justified in banning LGBTQ+ Summer Camps? Extra credit: explain your limiting principle for when State intervention in the parents' decision on how to raise their child is warranted and when it is not.

So please answer: A. Parents of 13 year old pregnant girl support her decision to have an abortion. State of Mississippi says we can't let you do that. Do you agree with the parents or with Mississippi? B. Parents of ultra-orthodox Jewish girl want to take her out of NYS school requirements and to put her into their own system where she will be taught traditional housewife skills and not English/Math/Science/Social Studies. New York State officials object. Who do you support? C. Parents of 15 year old boy want to send him to Christian Summer Camp where he will be taught, among other things, that homosexuality is a grave sin and that the Bible authorized severe punishment up to and including death. Boy says he is gay and does not want to attend. Who do you support?

So clicking through, I see: - Parents are CHOOSING to send their kids to this camp. - No one is FORCING parents to send their kids to this camp. Would I have wanted to send my kids to this camp? No. But then again, I didn't have kids in this situation. At one point does someone else get to override parents' rights to determine what kind of camp they want to send their kids to? I mean, isn't the whole thing here about asserting the rights of parents against governmental/public school efforts to expose them to something their parents object to? So I guess it's ok to override the will of the parents when it conflicts with the opinions of the majority of the society? So if the majority of the society thinks all kids should be vaccinated against COVID, apparently the parents should have no right to override this? So now you see why someone outside the right-wing echo chamber may start to doubt your motivations, and to question whether you are really about parental choice or whether it's about something else entirely.

These people are being played by the same Republican political consultants who successfully played them before. Back then it was the Defense of Marriage Act and all the state laws/referendums against same-sex marriage that were calculated to turn out the vote in the Bush 43 days. It worked then, so why not go back to the same playbook now?