Capco

Hell of a run.

I like the approach and tempo. Exactly how the Bills need to start. Just let Allen play ball.

Diggs left out to dry but that second throw was good.

Flags on the opening kickoff. To be expected.

Idk. In terms of a cost-benefit analysis, this costs the sheriff almost nothing but could potentially save a lot of hassle. I know, I know... everyone should know that there are no fans allowed at OBD at the moment. But as a wise man once said:

This is where I'm at. On paper our team has talent at every level but we do kind of play to our opponent. I'll be pleasantly surprised with a 35-7 blowout but I expect a 17-6 type score.

I’m much the same way. I put a great amount of value in common courtesy. Some of that is lost in the situations like you described above. I grew up in a rural area and still live in one. I’ve been to cities many a time, and while they do have a certain kind of almost palpable energy about them, it’s not something that I’d enjoy living in. Ultimately I enjoy peace, tranquility, and space over the benefits of being packed in like a sardine (I say that nebulously but there are advantages to living in close proximity with one another). When you know fewer people, you have more time available to really get to know those that you do know. That’s always been my philosophy on friendships and I can see how that would loosely translate to CA vs Idaho.

Clements and Winfield also come to mind. I think the last one we re-signed was McGee.

Politics aside, I'm very happy for you. It sounds like you made a great move. I never thought of Idaho as "the place to be" but I've also never been there. Besides the potatoes, what do you like about Idaho (aside from the political differences or things derived from them)?

Haha.

You do realize how much of our clothing, electronics and other products, produced by companies headquartered in some 1st world nation, come from sweatshops in 2nd/3rd world countries with minors working there, with far more innovation and technology than were present 100 years ago, don't you? https://theowp.org/reports/child-labour-shameful-reality-21st-century/ Child labor laws in the US have just driven American companies to obtain their child labor in countries that either have no/fewer laws preventing the use of child labor, or haven't the means to widely enforce the laws they do have. The desire to make money is still the driving force behind child labor to this day. However, the desire to make money is certainly not the only driver of innovation, although it can be a big part of it and as such I believe it must be balanced with the other drives in people's lives. Insatiable greed is what leads to things like child labor in a world of abundance. We aren't meant to just seek out money and nothing else; it isn't our only motivation in life or even the most powerful one. Trying to argue that child labor laws were not only unnecessary but also harmful is as ludicrous as it is stupid. If that were true then apparently you are a proponent of the removal of child labor laws as an unnecessary regulation (maybe because it is strangling free trade?). To your point, the drafting of child labor laws was maybe harmful in the sense that capitalism was the driving force behind families having to put their children to work in the first place. The do-or-die nature of unregulated capitalism, particularly the Gilded Age preceding the Progressive Era, when there were very few (if any) of social safety nets and labor laws that we have today, is what hurt those who were consumed by its insatiable greed until it was finally (although not completely) reined in. You see, no children get left on the street when there are publicly funded programs in place to take care of people who are down on their luck. Instead of "do or die," I prefer the phrase "The playing field is even: do well or don't do well. The choice is yours."

That's ultimately for a jury to decide. I think coming to a city: 1) one is entirely unaffiliated with, 2) with active protests, 3) with a firearm is worthy enough to provoke an attack. It was also a nod to DC Tom tbf. I kinda miss him calling me a moron.

If you read my last post carefully, then read the above chapters from Wisconsin state law, you would immediately begin to notice how his points were crafted with Wisconsin law in mind... since, you know, the incident happened in Wisconsin and Wisconsin thereby has jurisdiction. Why would you bring up Stand Your Ground when we are talking about a case in Wisconsin? Moron.

At the very least, he broke the law by carrying a firearm in Wisconsin as a minor, a Class A midemeanor: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60 Accordingly, he is not allowed to claim self defense under Chapter 939.48(2)(a), which reads as follows: (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48 It's certainly not a slam-dunk case by any stretch. A jury still needs to be convinced that the necessary elements to relinquish the privilege of self-defense are met. But to say the opposite, that it is a slam-dunk case of self-defense, is erroneous at best and misleading at worst. Wisconsin does not have a stand your ground law. There is a duty to retreat unless in one's home or vehicle or workplace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

I'm so glad there's not been any child labor in the world for the past 100 years. All thanks to capitalism (and not science or technology, of course; neither can exist without the foundation that is capitalism).

Nothing personal. Your post was the most recent search result for the word "capitalism" lol. Also, the point of my "America First" reference was not to suggest that you want to employ children, but rather to highlight your automatic dismissal of something because it doesn't fit your worldview. "Americans are often stereotyped as arrogant people. They are frequently depicted in foreign media as excessively nationalistic and obnoxiously patriotic, believing the U.S. is better than all other countries and patronizing foreigners." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_Americans#Arrogance_and_nationalism

It's usually a misdemeanor, actually. And can even be a felony.

"America First" in a nutshell.

Incorrect. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-crime-and-violation

I'm seeing a lot of ignorance and misinformation flying around about what happened in Kenosha, and I'm going to set the record straight from a professional legal position... as well as from a former military position. I'm going to explain some things from a more technical angle derived from my many years as a paralegal and from my experience working in federal criminal justice and prosecution. Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. As in, it can't even be entered as your official defense in court. It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren't even legally allowed to be driving. That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense. Another key discussion is the Castle Doctrine. Some of you may be vaguely familiar with it, as it is what allows you to use deadly force when someone comes into your house unlawfully, etc. But there are some finer points most people don't realize that you generally have to do some formal legal studies to know. First, as soon as someone sets foot inside the threshold of your home uninvited that you believe intends to commit a crime, you can legally use deadly force and it is immediately considered self defense, even if they haven't made any violent threats or actions towards harming you. This is because in every instance outside your home, you are required to retreat and extricate yourself from a dangerous situation if possible. It is a legal mandate, not a suggestion. Your home is considered the final retreat point, and legally you should be safe in your "Castle." There is nowhere else to retreat to, etc. This is why you are able to immediately use deadly force. However, it is NOT to protect your property, it is for protecting your LIFE. And once the burglar, for instance, has left your home... the threat to your life is considered neutralized, and deadly force is no longer authorized. So if a burglar runs out the door and down the street with your TV, you are no longer allowed to shoot after them because they are not threatening your life. You call the police, you file a claim with your insurance, and you get a new TV. If you shoot a burglar in the back down the street, you can and should be charged with murder. While you are out in PUBLIC, this means a lot of things obviously. It means that there is far more scrutiny and boxes that must be checked in order to claim self defense. You must be in IMMINENT danger of losing life and limb. Getting into an argument and feeling scared of being punched by an unarmed person? Not likely to be a situation where deadly force is authorized. You MUST retreat. If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you're afraid of a little scuffle. That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense. The man threw a plastic bag with trash in it at him AND MISSED, and Rittenhouse shot him. He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle, because he is an untrained idiot with a gun. The protester was not a threat, and even if he was, all he had to do was retreat back to the police line. He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight, and people are acting as if he were just there to keep the peace. He fired INTO A CROWD, and it's a miracle he didn't hit more people. More people that hadn't thrown a plastic bag. More people that were just trying to protest police brutality, which is a real issue in this country. And then when he did finally run away, some more protesters attempted to subdue him after he had already murdered someone, he tripped, and shot two people trying to stop him from shooting others. The fact that the police didn't arrest him and take him into custody right then and there, even if they suspected it could be self defense, is a grave issue with that police department. I could further dissect this situation, but for now I'm going to end with people passing around misinformation about the victims being "criminals so they deserved it." First, there are no actual records of Jacob Blake or the people shot by Rittenhouse being in the official sex offender's registry. None of them raped a 14 year old girl years ago, that is complete fabrication being purposely spread by right wing extremist sites in order to try and justify the shootings. Jacob Blake was indeed awaiting trial for sexual assault and trespassing, and did have a warrant for his arrest. It was not assault on a child, because that is a different charge with a different title. On the charging document, it would literally say that it was against a child. From what is publicly known, he allegedly broke into an ex girlfriend's house and allegedly assaulted HER, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and still deserves his day in court. He could truly be innocent. Rittenhouse's victims do not appear to have had any record, and even if they did, he couldn't have known that at the time. You cannot insist a shoot was justified AFTER the fact because "that person was a criminal." Criminals have rights too, whether you like it or not, and it is enshrined in the very documents that built our country. If you don't like the constitution and bill of rights, I don't know what to tell you. This is also not MY OPINION, this is literally how the criminal justice system and our laws work. I hold a degree in paralegal studies and served 8 years as an Army paralegal. I've worked for the criminal division in the Chicago US Attorney's Office, and currently work in federal law enforcement. This is what I do for a living, and I am not pulling this out of my ass, and my knowlege is a culmination of working in the field and being passionate about justice for 16 years. I'd be happy to send you sources and opines and case law and statutes if you need it. I did not get this from "mainstream media," and I am not brainwashed by the left. I'm an independent progressive. May he face justice for what he did, and may we find a way to get on common ground before more fuses to this powder keg are lit. -Reposted. Words from a military paralegal.

For the really good coaches, it doesn't have to be that way. Belichick is historically a 3-4 guy, but he switches his defenses to whatever is best suited to his personnel. Granted, he hasn't had to move around different teams so maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I still think his defenses are a good example of the idea.

Hoping for the best for Fitz and his family.

From the info that is currently available, I'd be surprised if the charges weren't dropped. He's clearly trying to maintain distance while people are coming at him and only shoots as a last resort.