cle23

You're a broken record at this point. Calling people commies is like 90% if your posts.

Well, if everyone just walks away as suggested and gives away Crimea and such, Putin would just focus on his next target. He's not going to just say thanks and sit down. He's proven that already. The point being that they can't fight the current war forever as suggested. But if everyone just gives in, there's nothing to suggest it would stop there. And I do believe that Putin is going to try to solve this with more and more bodies. That doesn't mean it's going to work.

You do understand that if Putin is just given Crimea and the Donbas, that he will just move on to his next target? He thinks all the old USSR territories are rightly his/Russia's. Russia cannot just keep throwing bodies at the issue like they used to. Their equipment is junk. They're using WW2 guns in a lot of places. They are running out of planes to deliver the bombs.

Invasion absolutely can make people the "bad guys," the US included. Russia is the bad guy here. The US is the bad guy in Iraq for example. The invader in the situation isn't ALWAYS the bad guy, but they usually are.

Probably not, but I didn't during Trump's time either. That's my point. You post here nonstop about all the problems caused during one administration, yet ignored the previous administration doing the exact same thing. Trump had 24 reported deaths of immigrants in custody and he was lauded for his policies. Now the chance to jump on Biden (though I do think there have been other deaths) and you're all over it. Making everything partisan then makes everything you say seemed biased, even when I am sure there are times you aren't. Partisan politics have got us to where we are today. Point the finger at the "bad" guy in office, all while doing the same things. Both parties do it too. Also, in case my other post wasn't clear, I mean the death was unacceptable. I reread it and thought it may have been unclear.

' Yes, both sides of the media portray it how they want. One side says they are all asylum seekers, which isn't true. The other side says they are all coming in as an invasion and just illegally crossing. While technically right about it being illegally, they leave out that 99.9% of asylum seekers have to cross illegally because they can't apply for asylum otherwise.

This is unacceptable. No one should disagree with that. Did you post this response for the 24 deaths in custody for Trump? Be outraged, that's fine, but be equally outraged.

Granted. Not applied for. And I used Mexico as the main example. Maras as you listed are essentially the cartels and gangs of other South American countries. In your own link, a pile of the countries listed with high asylum seekers are countries that the USA has had direct or indirect conflict with that has caused a majority of the issues there. I am definitely not an open borders kind of person. But I believe our system as set up is wrong as well. The "correct" channels to go through take years upon years. There is no perfect answer here, but just saying "no" isn't the answer either.

They are fleeing the drug war. Just in Mexico, over 20,000 people, which is almost certainly a low estimate, were killed just last year from the drug war. And that is civilians, not just the drug cartel members. Obviously there has to be some overlap of people who were counted as civilians but were involved with the cartels and the other way around, but it's still a huge number. And that number has been pretty consistent for 15+ years now. Every year. Is that not enough for asylum?

You can't apply for asylum unless you are in the United States already. Doesn't matter if they came across illegally, a vast majority of asylum seekers do as the wait otherwise is typically years. Defeats the purpose of seeking asylum. I am sure there are plenty of people coming just because as well, but the asylum seekers have to come illegally, they don't have a choice.

Trump was an "outsider" in name only. He did all the same crap that has been going on for years. He was just dumb enough to talk about it too. His family profited the same as everyone else in office.

Both parties have been saying this for YEARS. It's garbage either way.

I'd love to hear your reasoning here.

Jerome Bettis

I can't even say 100% I agree with age limits. If the person can do the job and the entire job, then I don't care. But no one should be there more than 8 years.

You talk a lot of crap about a city, when Buffalo has been just as bad over the years. They're on a good 3 year run, but haven't won anything more than Cleveland at this point. Congrats?

And this why term limits are needed.

Obviously the Bills will be heavy favorites, but an Urban Meyer Jacksonville beat Buffalo, so I doubt it's 10 tries. They're a pretty decent team.

Again, not great. I said he was average. But he wasn't "awful", especially given the circumstances. They played a game in 40 mph winds, and then another with -21 wind chill in the course of 6 games. Everyone plays in bad weather occasionally, but not 1/3 of your games. All that with very limited preseason and then no practice/meetings/etc for over half the season. There's a chance he doesn't improve going into this year, but I think it's a tiny percentage.

You keep saying Watson was awful last year, which isn't true. He definitely wasn't great, but he ended the year at 7 TDs, 5 INTs, and played 2 of his 6 games in terrible weather. And hadn't played in a year and a half. If he continues to play like that over the long haul, Cleveland will be average at best. Their defense blew more games last year and Joe Woods is finally gone.

Watson in 2020 was top tier. He still has the talent. He wasn't allowed to practice for months or even be in the building. He didn't even get 1st team reps or play much in preseason because they had to get Brissett ready to play. Watson was average last year. He was understandably very rusty the 1st game or 2 and they had a couple terrible weather games at the end of the year. Not excusing his play but it definitely puts it into perspective a little bit. He very well may never get back to where he was. But I think it's very premature to come out and say that he's terrible all the sudden.

I don't disagree with much of what was said, but Watson played in 2020, so he has played 6 games in 2 seasons, not in 3 seasons. You would assume that he would get back closer to 2020 Watson after a full offseason and beginning the year, but I don't disagree with Cleveland's lower rating until he proves it. If he is 2020 Watson, they should be SB contenders. If he isn't, then they won't be.

The DE tag is more than a LB tag. Or it was for several years. I do believe it is closer now. It's the average of the top 5 salaries for the position. And again, the previous post said if he was inline for 10%. That means 90% flexed. If Kelce was flexed 35%, that means he was inline for 65%, which is the majority.

Someone else put it best earlier in the thread. Burrow is the better QB. Allen is a better overall football player. Allen is bigger, faster, and has a stronger arm. Burrow is more accurate, and processes defense and coverages better. Burrow seems to make better decisions overall, and Allen will give you more WOW plays. If I had to pick 1 of the 2 start start a franchise with, it would be Burrow, but mainly because I feel like Allen's style of play is much more unforgiving, at some point he will slow down, and his body will have problems from the hits. It may be 3 years, it may be 10. But Burrow is a guy I could see playing 15-20 more years. Allen may too, but not the way he plays now. And I trust Burrow more as a pure passer than Allen.

If he lines up at the line for only 10% of his snaps, he would have a major case to be classified as a WR. Just like the LBs who rush 80% of the time. They usually win their case to be classified as a DE. What typically happens in those cases is the team and player agree to a number somewhere in the middle.