Capco

Oh idk, because an original thought isn't always necessary as part of a supporting argument? I mean I get the slight you're trying to send but... yeah lol. You go ahead and keep on thinking you are the one with all the answers while you try to portray the experts as holier-than-thou. Oh boy.

West Point and the Army Corps of Engineers were instrumental to the building of infrastructure in the early days of the nation. Without those engineers the nation develops much slower. You also saw a huge boom as a result of R&D during WWII. I mean I was just quoting someone else when I said that it was a pillar on par with the military. Not even an original idea or anything.

See, rhetoric like this I find concerning. The higher institutions of education in this country are one of its central pillars, on par with the military. There's a reason why people around the world come here in droves to attend our universities. On some level it feels like people are being conditioned to discredit experts simply because those experts have conclusions they disagree with. Expertise and specialized roles are very important to a high functioning society. No one single person can become an expert in every field, and this idea that any person can do all their own research and come to more accurate conclusions than people who have focused on this one single field for a lifetime is for the birds. You can't expect every single person to be a doctor and lawyer and physicist and nutritionist and farmer and hunter and mechanic and plumber and tailor and shipwright and the hundreds of other specialized roles that feed off of each other. That's why we lean on other people's expertise on a daily basis. Scientific advancement would come to a crawl without collaboration between researchers, for example. But to lean on experts requires trust, and that trust is being actively eroded from without while those very same people eroding that trust claim that it is the institution itself that is eroding from within. If we need to have a conversation about reforming parts of higher education, that's fine. But what we're seeing instead is a wholesale dismantling of the respect and trust in that institution. That's what should alarm you.

Right I got that. All good. This whole tangent on insanity is DC Tom's fault anyway. Let's just blame him.

So you really think those three law professors are insane?

The person who asked a question trying to characterize all insane people.

As a matter of fact I know a paranoid schizophrenic who is fully aware that he's insane. Some do know and some don't. No need to paint with such broad strokes.

Well now you're jumping the gun a bit yourself. Unless you think the Democrats intentionally picked insane witnesses. At Wednesday’s session, three legal experts called by Democrats said impeachment was merited. Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law School professor, said he considered it clear that the president’s conduct met the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Said Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor, “If what we’re talking about is not impeachable … then nothing is impeachable.” The only Republican witness, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, dissented from the other legal experts. He said the Democrats were bringing a “slipshod impeachment” case against the president, but he didn’t excuse Trump’s behavior. “It is not wrong because President Trump is right,” Turley said. “A case for impeachment could be made, but it cannot be made on this record.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/pelosi-gives-approval-for-drafting-impeachment-articles-against-trump Idk, but I think it would be pretty difficult to get a job as a law professor at Harvard if you were insane. Just a hunch though.

"Never before, in the history of the republic, have we been forced to consider the conduct of a president who appears to have solicited personal, political favors from a foreign government." Is it that Trump supporters simply think the above is bogus/hot air? Or do they just not care and turn a blind eye even if they think he did do what he is being accused of, perhaps by citing other presidents who they think did the same or worse? I'd hope it's mostly the former.

Kill this thread with fire.

Baltimore - 27 Buffalo - 17

Bwahahahaha. Now he's trying to say Allen wouldn't get to this level until 2020 when previously he didn't think Allen would ever get to any measurable level period. What a joke this guy is.

I feel like both Milano and Edmunds should play a "quasi" spy on 1/2 of the field each. Lamar is so fast that even a single dedicated spy can be caught out of position. If both LBs can play that disciplined style and split the spy duty, that could be key.

It seems that 8 or 9 of the top 12 rushing teams are potentially playoff bound.

They got flexed!

Baron Dink von Dunk.

He'll just run around the box.

As I'm watching Baltimore I can't help but think how much it feels like I'm watching a game of Madden. As a 3rd person observer with the benefit of a complete view, I can't even tell what they are doing on most plays until it's too late. It must be aggravating for those playing defense against them. Jackson is an incredible runner.

There's a quote from a pilot in WWII that articulates exactly how I feel the Bills should approach this game: I had deliberately decided that any deficiency the Kittyhawk had was offset by aggression. And I'd done a little bit of boxing – I beat much better opponents simply by going for [them]. And I decided to use that in the air. And it paid off. Nicky Barr, 3 Sqn RAAF

I think one of the issues is that the officials are not full time employees. Most of them are professionals (lawyers, engineers, businessmen), and those professions leave very little time to master officiating. I'd feel a lot better if the refs were full time. Hell I'd even apply to be one if they'd agree to never let me officiate a Bills game ? Interestingly enough, the fact that many are professionals theoretically makes them less susceptible to bribes. Corrupt judges and police are less common in places where they are paid enough to live comfortably, for example. Bribes are much more tempting when you are struggling to put food on your family's table. That's partly why corruption is so rampant in the developing world.

4 out of the 5 play in the trenches. I think that's telling.

If you want to go really off the deep end... the Patriots weren't good until after 9/11, when patriotism surged. What better team to win the Superbowl that year than the underdog "Patriots", eh?

There are definitely similarities in their approaches, but I think it's obvious that McD is a more modern version of those similar principles. I have a feeling McD is also more inspiring than a corpse.

Lol Boomer talks as if their crew knew Josh was good all along. What a crock.