Neo

McDermott looks like Bubbles on Trailer Park Boys.

I just hope Allen gets out alive.

Jon Gruden, clean up aisle five. Jon Gruden, aisle five.

I know, game day hot takes, and all. Acknowledged. I am ready to move on from both McDermott and Beane. Allen was genius. Cook was good. Very little else is even average. And, most importantly, I don’t see any urgency to change. Instead, two very comfortable, very confident, guys are asking us to be patient.

I think I could play 15 years in the league as a DE and not line up offside once. I’d not have any sacks, and I’d not be able to set an edge. But, I’d not line up offside even once.

Misspent evenings with the remote in my hand.

Who else read this out loud and thought of Jaqen H'ghar?

‘I’m not sure why you’re vexed. I said I’d wait for evidence following allegation. It’s an approach that’s served me well. Be well …

You have more confidence in NFL investigations than I do. I’ll wait for the allegation and evidence.

Maybe I’m missing something. What, exactly, interference was he responsible for? He ran to the tent and poked his head inside. That means he could be interfering. He could also be asking “how’s he doing?” If the point is he shouldn’t go there because people could assume the worst, I’ll agree. If the accusation is he’s bad, dumb, unconcerned or trying to influence, i’ll need to see more evidence.

I probably could have bought a small island with what I paid when the schedule was announced. That said, I’m bringing four people, including two from Buffalo. I’m in Tampa, but that means hotels, etc. In short, I paid for certainty given the travel plans of others. I’ve been doing this a few years. Yes, prices come down. If you’re a wash and wear person, wait.

Who wins a Super Bowl first? Allen with McDermott and Beane or Maye with Vrabel and Wolf?

I hadn’t seen Diggs catch a ball and not fall down in two years.

Too bad we didn’t intentionally turn the ball over in order to lose the turnover battle last week ….. icrackmeup.

The synagogue attacker has been identified as 35 year old Jihad Al-Shamie, a British citizen of Syrian descent who entered Great Britain as a minor. The crime has been labeled an act of terror. Time will tell us more. Immigration and integration are conjoined twins as issues. Neither is beneficial or harmful alone. Of course, how you define beneficial or harmful is the illuminating choice one makes during policy conversations. I am fascinated by England, Great Britain, and current events regarding immigration, integration and free speech. I am more than a little surprised by the trajectory. The Prime Minister and Home Secretary have said anti-semitism will not stand and that government will do everything it can to keep its citizens safe. Talk is of security. I am not convinced this is a security issue and not a national character issue, Time will tell. In the meantime, don’t tell me what security details are being deployed. Tell me what it means to be British. That moral courage shouldn't be controversial. That courage is scarce, though, and not just in Great Britain.

Philosophical question … Is a post that adds little value except to point out that another post adds little value also LAMP? And, if so, is this post that adds little value except to point out that your post had little value except to point out that his post had little value … and so on.

My wife and I used to stay in South Beach. That’s where we stay when we aren’t at Bills games. Restaurants, beaches and nightlife. Very nice, indeed. Pricey. We learned that Lauderdale is where the invading hoard encamps! You can go high to medium in pricing. You’ll find little cheap. Your hotel will be red, white and blue. We stay at a Marriott and the hotel looks forward to Bills fans every year. And, of course, the local watering hole “Bills” restaurants.

I still cant believe we got a Dolphins’ 1st round pick for Marlin Briscoe and used it to draft Joe DeLamielleure. BRB, going to Fin Heaven to see what they’re saying about it, today.

As a franchise, i think we should lose our first four Super Bowls. That makes winning our fifth a near certainty.

There is something to your post. Progressive impotence invites conservative over reach. That said, I consider one transgression to be part of a party’s organizing philosophy and the other transgression to be one individual clapping back excessively. Progressives gave the world Donald Trump, not conservatives. Trump is not a disease. He is a symptom.

Could be right, here. I say this even after recently peeking into Politics. There are a few people here I’d like to gamble with.

There is not a more efficient, more concise, more clear demonstration of understanding neither Donald Trump or Nazism than to link the two. Trump isn’t a fascist, and saying so weakens whatever other argument you may have against him. Further, I hope we all see how dangerous the uninformed or disingenuous argument can be. Few political labels carry as much rhetorical firepower as “fascist.” It is an indictment loaded with history’s heaviest baggage, invoking images of Mussolini’s jackboots, Hitler’s concentration camps, and the annihilation of democratic societies. When that term is applied casually, even frequently, to President Trump, it demands a pause for critical thinking. One can support Trump or not, but if we value honest argument, we can’t keep calling him something he demonstrably is not. Trump’s presidencies are disruptive. He challenges norms, attacks the press, casts doubt on electoral outcomes, and uses populist rhetoric to consolidate support. These actions stir legitimate alarm, particularly among academics, journalists, and progressives. But here’s the rub: not everything that alarms us is fascism, and calling it so weakens both the critique and the credibility of those making it. Fascism Is a specific ideology, not a synonym for strong man politics. Historically, fascism is not merely authoritarian or nationalist. It is a tightly defined political ideology marked by: 1) state control, including the dissolution of democratic institutions, and; 2) single-party regime that eliminates all opposition, and; 3) militarized expansionism, glorifying violence as a national cleansing force, and; 4) cult of personality, in which the leader is the mystical embodiment of the national will, and; 5) and; suppression of individual rights, free speech, and press not just in practice, but in principle. I will entertain a conversation around cult of personality and antipathy toward the press. Neither, however, is unique to Trump. Whatever you think of Trump, the United States under his leadership retains multiple centers of democratic power. The courts rule against him. The press stays free and relentless. Political opposition thrives, and elections continue (including one in which he lost and was removed from office). If this is fascism, it is fascism with term limits, Supreme Court rulings, free elections and Saturday Night Live sketches. In other words, it isn’t fascism. It’s tempting to focus on Trump’s authoritarian style and his disregard for norms. He has shown a preference for loyalty over expertise and uses brash rhetoric toward political enemies. But authoritarian tendencies exist across the political spectrum. So does ultra-nationalism. History is replete with left-wing strongmen who centralized power, suppressed opposition, and wrapped their movements in national glory. Stalin, Mao, and Castro were not fascists. They were authoritarians of the left. Their methods overlapped, but their ideologies were different. Fascism is not merely “authoritarianism we don’t like.” To confuse the two is to dilute both terms until they mean nothing. If Trump is a fascist, so too were Woodrow Wilson, FDR (who interned citizens), and Andrew Jackson (who defied the courts). Words like “fascist” should not be used as cudgels in political debate. They are powerful, yes, but that power comes when their precision is used correctly, not when their volume is used incorrectly. When scholars and journalists abandon the precision of language in favor of emotional resonance, they cease to inform and begin to incite. If everything is fascism, then nothing is. Worse, when the real thing arises, and history warns that it always can, we will have spent our credibility crying wolf. We will have alienated those who might otherwise have joined a thoughtful, principled resistance. Opposing Trump, as many Americans reasonably do, does not require historical distortion. There is ample ground to challenge his policies, criticize his conduct, and question his fitness for office. But calling him a fascist is not analysis. It’s theater. That’s my problem with the left. Absent confronting ideas, it tosses out thoughtless labels. If we are going to defend liberal democracy we must be better than that. We must name threats accurately, not emotionally. That means rejecting the lazy comfort of exaggerated labels, and instead embracing the harder works of truth and honesty. I leave this for readers to consider.

It’s not merely questionable, it’s deliberately absurd.

It is clear to me, as you say, that words can evoke [sic] different meanings to different people. Best of luck to you …

Too delicious … the “book banning” accusation in a thread addressing truth, reasoning and logic. Ethos (Credibility) Labeling conservatives “book banners” equates ordinary parents and school boards with regimes that outlaw entire ideas. In reality, these citizens are participating in the long-standing democratic practice of selecting age-appropriate material for publicly funded schools. This is stewardship, not censorship. Pathos (Emotion) The phrase “book banning” summons images of locked libraries and government purges. That framing is emotionally powerful but misleading. The books in question remain available in public libraries, online, and in stores. Conservatives appeal to a different emotion—protectiveness—arguing for developmental suitability, not for erasing ideas from society. Logos (Reasoning and False Equivalency) Removing a book from a school library is not banning a book. A ban prohibits all access under penalty of law; a removal is a curation decision about one venue. Public schools must choose what they stock, and communities have a right to set standards for minors. Equating selection with censorship is a classic false equivalency—it mistakes a limited, age-based decision for universal suppression. Conclusion (Avoiding Sophistry) Using “book banning” as a blanket label substitutes rhetorical force for accurate reasoning—what Aristotle (and Plato before him) would call sophistry. It obscures the genuine question of how schools choose materials suited to children. By separating emotion from logic, we see the accusation collapses under scrutiny. The real debate should focus on age-appropriate education, not caricatures of censorship.