Neo

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.

When outrage replaces argument … Life’s funny, sometimes. I’m in Santorini celebrating forty years with Mrs. Neo. Three days ago I was in Athens and visited the Lyceum and the Ancient Agora Marketplace. Inspired by Aristotle and Plato, and by Kirk, I seek the clash of ideas and offer the following. You wrote that Charlie Kirk “thought women (AND girls) should be legally forced to carry a fetus to birth in cases of rape and *****.” and called this view “psychotic.”. You went on to dismiss Kirk’s commentary on motherhood and career as “completely worthless.” The post wrapped up with a personal anecdote about a mother who successfully combined engineering work with raising three children. The post was emotionally powerful, but as an argument it fails. It misstates Kirk’s position, assumes away the core moral dispute, and trades careful reasoning for insult. In Aristotle’s terms, it relies almost entirely on pathos—emotional appeal—while neglecting logos (reasoning)and ethos (credibility). First, accuracy. Charlie Kirk did support laws banning abortion, even in cases of rape and *****. That is a position many Americans oppose, but it’s not the same as “wanting to force” women. Laws against abortion prohibit a procedure; they do not create squads to conscript women into pregnancy. Kirk’s stated rationale was protecting unborn life, not punishing or controlling women. He frequently spoke of fostering a culture of family, faith, and mutual support in which abortion would be unthinkable. You can reject his vision, but at least represent it honestly. You miss the forrest for the trees and avoid the crucial clash of ideas. Second, the post assumes what it needs to prove. It declares “it is up to an individual woman and no one else to decide,” which is a coherent moral principle—but only if you deny the fetus has rights of its own. Kirk’s view, shared by many pro-lifers, is that abortion ends a human life. Unless that premise is confronted head-on, simply invoking autonomy is circular. Third, the anecdote about a working mother, while inspiring, is irrelevant to the abortion question. A single personal story cannot settle broad sociological or moral debates. Nor does disagreement on abortion automatically disqualify someone from offering insights about work–family balance. That’s a non sequitur. Finally, calling a moral opponent “psychotic” is not argument. It may satisfy the already-convinced, but it alienates anyone on the fence and undermines the your credibility. If the goal is persuasion, not catharsis, the better path is to acknowledge Kirk’s sincerity and then show—using evidence and empathy—why his position produces unjust outcomes. America’s deepest disagreements can’t be resolved by caricature. We should want debates in which competing visions of life, liberty, and responsibility are tested against one another’s strongest arguments, not their weakest stereotypes. When outrage replaces argument, nobody learns, and nobody moves. Aristotle taught that persuasion requires credibility, logic, and measured emotion. That remains true, even—or especially—on questions as morally charged as abortion. I promised Plato. Plato wouldn’t dismiss you, he was always careful to distinguish between the interlocutor and the argument—but he would classify the argumentative style as sophistic: persuasive but not concerned with the underlying reality. In his view, such rhetoric corrupts the civic dialogue because it prizes winning over wisdom. Tomorrow, wine country and the blue domes of Oia.

Interesting to me. For years, I had business with several of its leaders and was on campus from time to time. It’s as progressive as college campus as I have experienced. Now, it’s also traditionally liberal, as that word had meaning before it was used to describe an ironically un-liberal political philosophy. I’d like to think that what we’re seeing, here, is what we’re so very sadly not seeing in many other places. That is, amongst a group of people most would find themselves sitting on the opposite side of the table from, Kirk’s views are respected. On a cautionary note. The Florida replaced much of New College’s Board of Trustees two years ago. Progressives were out, and conservatives were in. The climate may be different and, in this case, the statue’s reception will be interesting to watch. The students can certainly debate. Fun Fact … New College isn’t very well known, even in Florida. Some twenty years, or so, ago, the New York TImes was investigating undergraduate college programs that disproportionately placed students in the country’s most prestigious graduate schools. This “New College” in Florida showed up as the school with the highest, per capita, placement in the country. The Times had no idea who New College’s was and picked up the phone, called the school, and asked “who are you?”. It is an awesome school. Fun Fact number 2 … when I was working with the college, Donal O’Shea was President. Learning I was from Buffalo, O’Shea talked to me about his youth. He was a Calasanctius Preparatory School graduate. Old timers will remember that school as a place for the gifted and a champion of the liberal arts.

week 15

If the Bills drafted backwards, taking their last pick first, their second last second, and so on …. Beane would be considered draft day wizard.

The only thing better than catching the ball when you (and everyone else) is covered, is catching the ball when you’ve made yourself uncovered. Cook isn’t doing what he was drafted to do, either, which was to play situationally as a pass receiving back out of the backfield. Allen was drafted to be a franchise quarterbAck and he’s entered the conversation as among the best to play his position. I’m none too happy with Hawes, who was drafted to be a blocking tight end. Don’t even get me started on Brown, Benford and Bernard.

Ha! I just finished editing my post to capture this.

Well, I will consider this thread developmental for you. I addressed two of the three absurdities you wrongly attributed to Kirk earlier in this thread and you’ve dropped them from your diatribe. Progress. You've retained the “black women do not have ….” absurdity and added quotation marks. This makes me happy. Using quotations means you’re aware of the original material. Can you point me to it? I ask a second time. Now, I don’t expect an answer. You have no answer. What you have is a willingness to say flap doodle with the utmost of confidence. We all encounter people so constituted from time to time. It’s always annoying. When it’s done relative to an assassination, of both a man and his character, it’s also despicable. What I’m noticing in the wake of Kirk’s murder is that there’s a large number of people unencumbered by reason, grace and honesty, especially when they see an opportunity to anonymously inflame on the web. The number is larger than I thought. Hundreds of years from now, anthropologists will describe the birth of the internet and point to its role as a Petri dish nourishing and nurturing the dumb and evil among us. Tell me, loud and proud friend, the source of your quotation. If you do, I’ll fundamentally change my view of Kirk. Until you do, I’ll continue to believe your posts tell us everything we need to know about brain power, but not the brain power you’re referencing. Edit to add: I found the original material. Kirk, referring to certain specific black women, called them DEI hires who took jobs from white women who were smarter. This is what affirmative action and DEI do, where smarts are an element of selection, support it or not. One of the women, later in the clip, then calls herself an affirmative action beneficiary, confirming Kirk in her own words. He didn’t say what you quoted. He said nothing about black women as a class. No sentient person could conclude he said what you quoted. Kirk’s crime? He used words close to one another that someone could re-arrange in a way, modify in a way, to besmirch his character.

I raised four rabid Bills fans in Tampa. They’re representing in four different cities across the country later today. You’re a good dad getting her involved from Colorado Springs. You’ll share Sundays with her for fifty years! Dads and daughters. Nothing like it on the planet.

The Bills last won their last playoff game in 1965.

Buffalo goal, number 14, Rene Robert. Assists, number 7 Richard Martin and number 24, Billy Hajt. Robert, from Martin and Hajt. Time of the goal, 13:36.

For your consideration. You may want to sample more of the media before describing those who avail themselves of the media.

Unless it’s a political online message board.

I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re reading inaccurate reports of what he said. The benefit goes further to assume you never watched the original videos, or that you weren’t paying close attention. If you watched and didn’t get it, you’re on your own and good luck to you. Kirk never said anything close to two of those things (I’ve watched). I’ve not seen the third, but would bet my left leg against a bologna sandwich he didn’t say that one, either. Kirk asked if you want your pilots selected because they’re black or because they’re excellent. He chose excellent, regardless of race or gender. I do, too. I suspect we all do. In the past year, I had open heart surgery that three doctors attended to. One was a white male, one was a black male and one was a Pakistani woman. I’m grateful to all, as Charlie would have been. Stephen King posted on X that Kirk had advocated for the stoning of gay people. King, however, took Kirk's Biblical reference out of context (his words) and presented it as an endorsement of violence. I’ve watched it. Following immediate backlash, King deleted his post and issued an apology on September 12, 2025. King admitted he was wrong and regretted posting without fact-checking. A google search or visit to King’s X account will clear this up for you. I don’t know the brain power reference. I’m happy to let you point me to it. In conclusion, none of us knows everything anyone else ever said. That should be enough to discourage all of us from saying sh***y things about people before we’ve made sure we’re correct. Gorillas flinging poo in a cage aren’t dangerous. That is, until others decide to join in.

Irony is a wonderful rhetorical device, when intended. it’s quite a different thing when unintended. Charlie did love the good, the bad and the ugly. He loved the “cheating sexually assaulting traitor” you reference. That’s who he was. You just demonstrated, unintentionally, the admirable essence of the man. Loving sinners is a fundamental characteristic of Christianity, aspirational or not, person to person. You also just demonstrated, again unintentionally, that Kirk practiced what he preached. Now, I am unburdened by the desire to sh** on people when they’re dead or mourning. I don’t know you from Adam, but you may want to give your two subjects, Kirk and Christianity, a few hours of quiet reflection.

I agree, completely. Far too often posters offer opinions without having looked through the thread to see if the opinion’s already in play. A site’s value is diminished when it becomes a series of entries each essentially representing the same point of view expressed by different people. I try to make sure my words add value and aren’t merely echoes of those written previously by others and I’ll thumb’s up a poster for affirmation. My grandma taught me that if I didn’t have something new to say, sit silently. In any event, grateful for Scott and team.

I was unaware of the word “yeet.”. I dig it.