Logic
-
Posts
9,712 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Logic
-
-
At the time, I was INFURIATED that they traded away Sammy Watkins.
I was always a big fan of his and felt that the Bills had misused him and saddled him with awful QB and awful offensive playcalling from day one. In my opinion, he had -- and still has -- the talent and work ethic to be the best receiver in the league. Aside from his health, he keeps being the victim of terrible situations. Even in LA last year, he arrived late enough that Woods and Kupp had already established a rapport with Goff. Watkins never seemed to be more than the third option or deep threat decoy in their passing game. I still feel that he's one of the most physically talented WRs I've ever seen.
That being said, I've gotten over it. Watkins probably would've walked anyway, so getting a 2nd round pick and a year of Gaines was a win. Also, seeing Sammy's daily lunatic rantings on Twitter about being a solar reptilian being make me feel better about the whole thing.1 minute ago, Domdab99 said:lol you don't know that
I mean...he DID say "I think", not "I know for a fact!".-
6
-
-
7 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:
Like I said, you're splitting hairs. You got caught trying to pull off a mini shell game now you're doing your best to slither away from it. This right here is why so many people here think of you as being intellectually dishonest.
Yes, he made a statement, got called out on it, told us to prove his point for him and then tried to run away from his original statement by claiming a technicality. "Logic " certainly doesn't come from "logical".
Riiiiight.
Meanwhile, you've provided PLENTY of facts and elaboration on your unimpeachable claim that "the only reason there were no indictments...is because of a crooked dem administration".
For my original post quoting a comedian, I have to provide a thesis paper. You, meanwhile, get to lob the accusation that you did against the "crooked dem administration" without providing an iota of proof or elaboration. If that's not a double standard, I don't know what is.
As to trying to "run away" from anything, I've been here all day, haven't I? Please, though, keep asking me to elaborate on or defend a claim I never made.1 minute ago, GG said:I'm pretty certain it has something to do with your implication that Obama's administration had no scandals that were prosecuted.
And if you are truly logical, would you ask yourself, "Why would Sessions agree to settle the case and apologize to the plaintiffs, but not go after the IRS officials?"
Could it be that he has a bigger target all teed up?
I feel that a more accurate summary of my original implication was that the GOP wants to end an investigation which has provided much more in the way of indictments (23) than the other two mentioned GOP pet project investigations (0), which they dragged on endlessly.
Furthermore, I suppose we won't have to guess at the Mueller/Sessions "bigger targets" possibility for much longer. One would think the tires will hit the pavement -- either with Sessions and his "bigger target" or with more indictments in the Mueller investigation -- in the coming months. -
15 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:
You're splitting hairs and you know it. Show me an instance where someone from the Trump campaign has been indicted for collusion with the Russians.
Show me what's factually incorrect about stating that the collusion investigation has resulted in 23 indictments.
I never said that the indictments were FOR collusion. Never said it. Quit asking me to defend a statement I never made.18 minutes ago, Koko78 said:And you continue to run away from a very simple question... again.
It's really not hard. There are 23 indictments from the "collusion investigation". Identify those indictments that are related to the Russian Federation colluding with the Trump presidential campaign.
Put up and admit that your "semantics" are intellectually dishonest, or !@#$ off.
Pretty sure if you swear at me one more time, you get a free MAGA hat! -
7 minutes ago, GG said:
What does that have to do with anything, again? -
1 hour ago, Ifartalot said:
Speaking of pedophiles:
Mr. Clinton flew on the Boeing 727 “Lolita Express” 26 times, more than doubling the previously reported 11 trips.
“Bill Clinton associates with Jeffrey Epstein, who everyone in New York, certainly within his inner circles, knew was a pedophile."
"Why would a former president associate with a man like that ?”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/bill-clinton-ditched-secret-service-on-multiple-lo/
Gotta love some good 'ol Whataboutism! -
39 minutes ago, GG said:
I'll take a flyer on guessing whether you'll man up and return to this thread after Sessions, Horowitz, et al are done.
I'll take a flyer on guessing whether ANY of the "Clinton mob conspiracy" Scooby gang will man up and return to this thread once the impeachment process begins. -
27 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:
This was your original post:
Like Dana Gould said today:
The Benghazi Investigation
4 years
0 indictments
Clinton email investigation
2 years
0 indictments
Russian collusion investigation
14 months
23 indictments
"Clearly there’s nothing there. Let’s wrap it up!”I objected to your characterization that there were 23 RUSSIAN COLLUSION indictments. I knew that was false and asked you to clarify it. You put on a dog and pony show and refused to support your pronouncement. You pull the sameshit whenever you visit here. You deserve gator as your bud.
Stating that the Russian collusion investigation has resulted in 23 indictments is not factually incorrect. 23 indictments DID result from said investigation. The fact that they are not all specifically for collusion does not change the fact the indictments happened as a result of the collusion investigation. It's semantics, sure, but that's the road you all seem to want me to go down. As for me putting on a "dog and pony show", are you kidding me? Refusing to defend claims I never made and objecting to the use of personal insults instead of discourse is a dog and pony show? Sure man, okay.
22 minutes ago, Koko78 said:Factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest are completely different things, you disingenuous asshat. Every time you're here, you go out of your way to be dishonest, then wonder why you're treated like a disingenuous asshat.
Tell you what, answer the !@#$ing question you were posed FIRST. Then maybe one of us will give a schiff about answering yours.
He won't. He'll run away for a few months, then come back and pretend he wasn't a coward last time... again.
Gosh, with such intelligent and mature discourse as repeatedly swearing at me, and calling me (so far): Intellectually dishonest, a disingenuous asshat, a coward, etc...why WOULDN'T I spend more time here? The REASON I only show up every few weeks is because the same 4 or 5 people tend to INSTANTLY remind me why I don't post here more often by name-calling and making ridiculous demands that are inconsistent with what you yourselves provide in terms of explication or elaboration. You act as if you all provide mature, thorough, unimpeachable political analysis at all times, when that is often FAR from the case. Different sets of standards seem to apply to anyone who has a minority opinion on these forums. The mere fact of my daring to question the GOP or Trump usually results in an onslaught of attacks on my character and, for some reason, my honesty. And I don't suppose I need to mention the obvious irony of GOP supporters daring to lob accusations of questionable character or dishonesty. -
11 minutes ago, Koko78 said:
Oh, we're playing this game now. That's fine.
Military deaths under Obama: ~2,500
Military deaths under Trump: ~33
I'm clearly not saying anything about how much of a dangerous warmonger Obama was by these out-of-context numbers.
He was, and he is.
Oh for christ's sake. Nice pivot. Like I said, if you have anything of substance, let's hear it. I'm done with this silliness otherwise.8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:Then defend your innuendo.
You two are quite the pair. Tiberius is right. Just keep demanding explanations and explications whilst not providing any yourself when you post obviously biased statements and subjective opinions. If you two didn't like my original post, you've done nothing whatsoever to refute it with substance, reasonable discourse, or anything other than some namecalling and getting stuck in a "we want you to explain every single indictment, point by point!" loop. You want me to "defend my innuendo"? I think the original statement was pretty clear: The GOP -- specifically with regard to the way they've handled and reacted to the three above mentioned investigations -- is displaying blatant hypocrisy. Not sure what else you want me to say. That subjective opinion is no less valid or "intellectually honest" than your statement about the "crooked dem administration!!!".
Now, since you keep demanding that I explain things, I have one I'd like YOU to explain: What about my original post was factually incorrect? -
Just now, Koko78 said:
So, you will neither answer the question (which we all know you can't, because there are exactly zero indictments relating to collusion), nor admit your intellectual dishonesty (which we all know you're being completely disingenuous and dishonest anyhow). Got it.
It's amazing that you continue to wonder why people here have zero patience with your brand of dishonest stupidity.
I'm beginning to think your reading comprehension is not so good.
I never stated that the indictments were related to collusion. Go find where I said that. I simply said there have BEEN indictments. There have. I'm not going to defend statements I didn't make.
As to "intellectual dishonesty", I shan't respond, since it's a baseless insult. As I stated before: Having a different opinion than you does not make someone else "intellectually dishonest".
If you want to provide any substance whatsoever, I'm here. If you want to continue to call names, make accusations, and generally act like a child, I'm over it. Have a lovely day! -
12 minutes ago, Koko78 said:
Exactly. He can't answer a simple question:
Logic, either answer the !@#$ing question, admit you're being completely intellectually dishonest with your assertions, and/or !@#$ off once again.
Again with the anger. I'm starting to sense a common theme here.
As far as answering any questions: Sure. As long as you play by the same rules. 3rdnlng just made a completely subjective statement, saying that "there were no indictments with the Benghazi and email investigations because a crooked dem administration refused to do anything". Did he provide any facts or explications? No, not a one. Meanwhile, this whole thread has to come to a stop unless I explain in detail each of 23 indictments. Get real. My original post included a factual assertion: The Mueller investigation has produced 23 indictments. That's a fact. It's not dishonest, it's not "fake news!!!!", it's a fact. As usual, you now bombard me with demands that I defend claims that I never even made (that all indictments were of American citizens, for instance).
As soon as you defend and explain YOUR obviously subjective assertion, I'll defend and explain the FACT that I posted.-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:
The very premise of your original post was horseshit. That there were no indictments with the Benghazi and email investigations were because a crooked dem administration refused to do anything. Now, as to the 23 indictments handed down how many were against Russians for FB posts? How many were against U.S. citizens for collusion with Russia? How many were illegally gotten?
From the first time I saw one of your posts it was obvious what a dishonest poster you are. Do you actually think you can pass off your crap down here?
To accuse someone else of horseshit and then immediately follow it up with a completely subjective opinion of the type you posited is bold indeed.
As to the second bolded quote, I suppose anyone who disagrees with you is a "dishonest poster"? Or perhaps its as Boyst said "A mouth-breathing SOB". "Pass off my crap down here"? Again, what do you mean exactly? Having an opinion contrary to the majority Fox News driven opinions that prevail around these parts? Would it be better to behave as you and some others do, by personally attacking people, asking a bunch of inane questions, and accusing them of dishonesty for having differing opinions?
The ease with which people jump to personal insults and insinuations of deviance around here is ridiculous. I simply quoted a comedian who pointed out that while the two most popular GOP "witch hunts" (to use the words of our beloved president) produced no indictments, the Mueller investigation has already produced 23. You can try all the obfuscation and distraction tactics you want, but nothing about my original post was "dishonest" or "horseshit" whatsoever. As with the previous name-calling poster, I'd suggest you seek out psychiatric assistance or spiritual practice to help you cope with your anger issues.-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:
Can you explain to us what they have to do with Russian collusion? Were all these indictments directed at U.S. citizens?
Can you explain to me what about my original post (wherein the only thing mentioned was that there have BEEN 23 indictments) was factually incorrect? Can you stop asking questions to which you already obviously know the answer?
The point of Gould's quote is pretty clear: the GOP saw to it that the e-mail and Benghazi investigations rolled on and on and on, despite no indictments. Now, in Mueller's investigation, there are 23 verified indictments, and the GOP says "nothing there! Shut it down!". If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, then I don't know what to tell you. With regard to the "but how are they related to Russia?" query: if a state trooper pulls someone over because they suspect the driver is drunk, then the trooper discovers a kilo of cocaine in the backseat, should they just ignore it because it doesn't pertain to the original point of suspicion? -
1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:
Can you say a little something about each of these indictments?
Google it. Here, let me save you the effort:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury
-
12 hours ago, Boyst62 said:
His "logic"
How many pertained to Russia collusion?
...mouth breathing son of a B word.
Boy, you sure are quick to anger. I posted a completely non-personal quote that was, itself, an opinion expressed by someone else originally. Your response? To call me a "mouth breathing son of a B word". I'd suggest you seek out psychiatric analysis or spiritual practice of some sort to deal with that anger. -
8 hours ago, njbuff said:
Smart people know that this whole Russian thing is a cover up by the left as they are the ones who have done all the colluding with Russia, just because they lost an election.
Like Dana Gould said today:
The Benghazi Investigation
4 years
0 indictments
Clinton email investigation
2 years
0 indictments
Russian collusion investigation
14 months
23 indictments
"Clearly there’s nothing there. Let’s wrap it up!”
-
20 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:
Going back to guys like Nate Clements and Antoine Winfield...
Defensive Backs also include Safeties and we had George Wilson who was pretty good and Jairus Byrd and Aaron Williams... Searcy was good when he started for us as well... Now we have Hyde and Poyer
Terrence McGee and Jabari Greer were good
McKelvin took a bit to develop and then became actually pretty steady... his PR skills went down his coverage skills went up...
Robey Coleman was undrafted and became a very good slot corner for us
We have had quite a few top 10 passing defenses in the last 15- 18 years
Stephon Gilmore even though a whipping boy was a good player for us. Came in day 1 and was our #1 corner ...
now we have Tre White and Vontae... our DBs have not been the problem during the bad years mostly...
we have been steady there
Now I’m not saying we built all those teams correctly but we have always had a pretty good secondary the last 15 + years
This.
And to anyone who replies "yeah, well, that's just because you keep investing high picks in defensive backs!": No. There's more to it than that. The league is littered with first round cornerback busts. It's not as if every DB taken in round 1 is a star. The Bills have been good at identifying, drafting, and developing DBs for years now. They're not always great at retaining them once their rookie deals expire, but that's another story for another day.
Some teams are just good at identifying, drafting, and developing certain positions. The Steelers with wide receivers. The Cowboys with offensive linemen. The Bills with defensive backs.
Provided key players stay healthy (always a big "if"!), the Bills look poised to continue this trend into 2018. -
Personally, I think it's really hard to form opinions on Bills receivers based on the past few years due to the dreadfulness of our passing offense in general and the throwing inadequacies of our quarterback in particular. Case in point? Robert Woods, Sammy Watkins, Chris Hogan, and Marquise Goodwin were considered a "below average" WR corps in Buffalo. Suddenly, they're all quality players elsewhere. The Bills threw the ball with such seldomness and inefficiency that it's simply difficult to deduce much useful data about the players in said offense.
In terms of Zay Jones, the thing that seemed to plague him last year was a case of the Yips. He dropped a few early passes and got into his own head about it and couldn't get out of his own way. It also came out later that he played most of the year with a torn labrum.
All together, given the jump in competition level he faced in year one, the jump receivers typically make from year one to year two, his return to full health, and the additions of what will hopefully prove to be higher quality passers, I expect Zay Jones to make a big jump in production and quell any questions about whether he's a bust. I never expect him to turn into a top 20 receiver in the NFL, but I think he'll have a long career as a dependable chain-moving slot possession receiver. In order for him to reach optimal production, it really seems to me he needs to play primarily out of the slot and not be depended on to be "the guy" in the passing game.-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, CountDorkula said:
People keep saying this, yet no one has brought one of those videos to the table.
I don't know how to make videos and upload them to Youtube...but do you really dispute the notion that a person could pick out 10 bad plays from literally any QB that's ever played and make a similar video? Unless you dispute the notion that, say, Tom Brady has ever HAD 10 bad plays, then I don't see why you'd find it so hard to believe that such a video could be made.
-
1
-
-
Lowlight videos are as useless as highlight videos.
You could package together the 10 worst plays of any QB in the NFL and make a similar video.
-
Just wanted to chime in that I love Peter King. I read MMQB every monday without fail.
Aside from his being from Boston and having a bit of an ego (what major national sports figure doesn't?), I really don't see why some Bills fans hate him so much. He's a good writer.
To each their own. I'm not here to change anyone's mind. I'll keep reading and enjoying his work. -
Receiver. Dear God(des)(es)....RECEIVER!
-
1
-
-
I don't care about the labor pains. Just show me the baby.
-
2
-
-
The good news is this: Look over the list of names saying bad things. Not ONE of those guys is worth a damn in terms of knowing anything more about football than any regular old message board fan. Not one.
-
He'll either go to LA and reunite with Lynn or to Baltimore to reunite with Roman.
Buffalo Bills get UDFA steal in OT Ike Boettger from Iowa
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
There are four positions from which I'd always like to have at least one play on the practice squad:
WR, RB, OT, CB
Uber athletic WRs and RBs that need some seasoning can gain it on the practice squad and be ready at a moment's notice to fill in on Sundays. Tackles can spend time in the weight room and going over the fine points of technique. Corners, you can never have enough of, so having an extra one ready to go on the PS is a good thing.
So I hope Boettger DOES stick on the practice squad. I hope one or two of the many young WRs on the roster (McCloud, Proehl, Foster, Dupre, Reilly, etc) sticks, and I hope Levi Wallace from 'Bama sticks around if he doesn't make the 53.