[Is Gender Ideology a RELIGION built like a house of cards?]

23 hours ago, JaCrispy said:

Yes...When Matt Walsh is interviewing the green haired pediatrician, she responds “Whose truth?” insinuating that there is no objective truth of what a woman is (even though the official definition is adult human female), but rather everyone has their own truth- their own definition of what a woman is....

 

And imo, civilization will not be able to sustain itself if people cannot agree on a basic understanding of reality...

 

Probably among the most salient sentences that have ever been written in this subforum, yet you chose video links from an obvious right-wing grifter like Matt Walsh over highly cited research from biologists who devote their lives to the study of gender science? Which side, exactly, is in a religious cult??

 

“What is a woman?” Is that your honest question? The answer is that gender identity is a bit more nuanced than chromosomes and reproductive systems. For whatever still undetermined reason or combination of reasons (genetics, prenatal development, etc.), the brain development of a small percentage of people does not match their visible outside markers of gender distinction. When I say “brain development,” I’m referring to the observable differences between a stereotypical male brain and female brain in terms of structural composition and neural activity. Early studies of transgender people are showing this discrepancy to be the case for them. Neuroscience is an extremely complex subject that you could say is very much still in its infancy, so that’s why the scientific community tends to prevaricate when asked about definitive gender identification protocols.

 

I suppose our society can eventually reach a point where we demand expensive brain scans and elaborate neuroimaging for every single person who wants to identify as a gender incongruous with their physical bodies, but in the meantime…it’s a lot easier to simply ask them. Whatever happened to “live and let live” from the political right, anyway? The lives of transgender people are already extremely difficult (especially throughout their adolescence), so why not just leave them alone instead of amplifying the hatred and discrimination and bullying?

 

EDIT: Note that competitive sports participation and hormone therapy for legal minors ARE legitimate debates to be had on the subject of transgenderism, but they can’t be had with a debate side that disregards these human beings as psychological “freaks” and “weirdos.” Go out and meet actual transgender people and ask them about their lifelong gender-based thoughts and experiences.

[What is better, no guns, or more guns?]

On 5/29/2022 at 1:25 PM, Buffarukus said:

your talking about how unrealistic it is but the point would be to give people a fighting chance. that is always going to be better then not having one at all until law enforcement arrives or sadlyin texas, boarder patrol. not sure what the issue is or why anyone would not support it besides the fact the people who decided to be armed would immediatly be the ones blamed and demonized if they did not "wyatt earp" because they locked up and were scared. noone knows exactly how they would act. 

 

i agree with psychological issues have to be a huge component in gun law. its going to be a very tough line to draw as A) penalizing people for seeking treatment is going to deter alot of help and B) what particular line is reasonable. the fact DAs seem to be laxing on crime in general is not helping anyone. felonies reduced to not be flagged on a background search. illegal carry being almost as common and pretty much normalized is pretty strange seeing as these are the places that have/want stricter gun laws on people that abide by the law. we are going in the wrong direction. ill never get that

 

yes i realize both shooter legally bought guns but the 1000's of others that for whatever reason never get the spotlight. we have a cocktail brewing of anti/ demonized police and in the case of texas also the boarder patrol. a call to demilitarize police should be looked at as these situations require swat type gear but people have demanded it be removed regardless of circumstances. DAs that have become lenient. a economy that is putting alot of pressure and desperation on people that were already struggling. people that are repeatedly being brought to the attention of officials as high up as the federal level and "slipping through the cracks" of multi billion dollar org that are specifically there to prevent these things and a population that is buying more guns then ever because of all of this.

 

im sorry to say it doesnt look like this is going to get better anytime soon. the IMMEDIATE answer is to advocate for the ability to defend oneself and those around them and make it very clear by officials that doing so will not result in punishment of its own which has also been a issue for decades for some absurd reason.

 

The issue is that I don’t necessarily think buildings full of little children become incrementally safer with military-grade weapons located inside them. And I don’t necessarily think the children are incrementally safer in the heat of battle when educators not trained for combat are wielding these weapons.

 

That is not to say that I am completely against the idea of having armed defenders in schools, but this idea would have to be combined with other substantial gun control measures. FWIW, I’m a progressive lefty who considers herself a center-righty on the Second Amendment issue. I’ve tended to defer to gun owners on the types of guns they insist they need for self-defense, but I’m quickly losing patience with right-wing obstinance when it comes to regulating who is allowed to buy these guns.

 

I think the fundamental problem we have here (along with gerrymandering rules) is the lack of campaign finance reform legislation. Those with the most money can best bribe the politicians and control the propaganda. ~70-90% of Americans want meaningful gun control laws, but major campaign donors from the NRA own the GOP and intimidate the Democratic Party into inaction. So far, the only politicians I’m aware of at the national level who reject corporate and large individual donations are AOC, Omar, Pressley, Tlaib, Bowman, Cori Bush, and Bernie. Hmmm…

[2022 Mid-Terms - All Races, Polls, and Russian Interference]

On 5/25/2022 at 10:35 PM, Governor said:

The wheels are coming off of the GOP. It will be the Trumpy candidates that prevent them from taking either chamber. Most of them are going to lose.

 

By chance, have you been following the Democratic primary race in the Texas 28th congressional district?? Jessica Cisneros versus Henry Cuellar? If so, any quick thoughts?? Mine:

 

1. It’s shameful (but predictable) for Pelosi and Clyburn to be backing a scandal-ridden, pro-NRA, anti-Roe DINO like Cuellar in this particular election season.

2. Cisneros is probably going to lose by an incredibly small margin (<100 votes??), but it was still a very impressive showing since she almost beat an incumbent who had the entire financial backing of the Dem establishment.

3. I’m not at all confident like Pelosi is that Cuellar will win in November against Cassy Garcia, and I don’t think it even matters in the big picture because of the whole DINO thing.

4. This is a bellwether Dem primary and among the most important ones in the country. I think it shows that moderate Dems are slamming into a popularity ceiling with non-Cuban Latinos, and that suppression of progressive electoral energy is going to hurt in November. Meanwhile, we’re managing to see plenty of Latino enthusiasm for a candidate in conservative South Texas “despite” her full endorsement from a supposedly wacky NYC socialist.

5. The generational divide between moderate old Democrats and progressive young Democrats is once again rearing its ugly head. Democrats will have to somehow keep this caustic coalition glued for another five months in the face of a looming economic recession and a failed agenda for the working class (namely: Build Back Better).

[What is better, no guns, or more guns?]

4 hours ago, aristocrat said:

well school shootings are so very rare so arming them doesn’t really have any hard evidence. 130k schools in the country you have maybe 1 of these a year.  
 

the Texas shooing was in the 60s. There have been all sorts of mass shootings going back to the 1700s. Look it up. It’s not a modern problem. 
 

again. Cut out the supply chain of illegal weapons. Raise the age to 21. Psych evals. If that leads to less shootings that’s a good thing. We need to stop the issue from the source and not accept that some kids will die until a teacher cops or sro gets there. Stop the kid from getting the gun

 

Yes, thank you! I was just about to make this same point. All sorts of spurious statistical arguments can be made from insufficient amounts of data.

 

And yes, the concept of some random bespectacled Good Samaritan educator saving the day with a Wyatt Earp-esque fast draw and steady hand is BEYOND absurd. While I’m not at all a gun maven, let’s just take the case of the Buffalo Tops shooting…long story short…I made the HORRIBLE mistake of watching the full 6-minute video recording. My main takeaway here was that prevention of much of the carnage was always going to be completely unrealistic, regardless of the firearm skills of any passers-by. Payton Gendron, equipped with military-style weaponry and decked out in military-style body armor, murdered the first four people outside the front entrance within about five seconds after opening his car door!

 

You also mentioned psychological evaluations as an important component of gun regulations. Well…sure enough, we have come to learn that both Payton Gendron and Salvador Ramos had a despicable history of cat torture. Animal torture is obvious criminal behavior and should have been flagged by someone beforehand for the law enforcement agencies! It’s classic behavior for clinical sociopaths, who are exactly the types of people capable of carrying out mass shootings.

 

So if we’re serious about preventing mass shootings, then we need to work as a society on the identification and management of sociopaths as much as we work on more sensible gun laws. This would have to mean expanded mental health counseling programs under the rubric of a universal health care system.

[BREAKING: SCOTUS to overturn Roe?]

6 hours ago, Buffarukus said:

your percentages almost show why this may not be the god given right the left claims. there is a varying opinion on what should be a reasonable cut off date. your arguing about the percentages of people who think it should be legal but also showing the vast amount of OPINIONS that people have about when life starts. that alone should give people pause for a second to think about the gravity of the subject. what your showing is there are a array of people that think it is murder after a certain time or certain circumstances. i think that means we as a nation have needed to have some very difficult conversations about creating a very logical science based cutoff point. this is not simplistic as for or against. there are philosophical ways to poke holes in even logical outlooks. life doesnt begin until the 2nd tri? so if someone attacks a pregnant woman before that stage can he be charged with murder because she planned on giving birth? so are intentions introduced in deciding whether she has life in her?

 

having the supreme court rule it has kinda swept the subject under the rug. i guess its time to really hold our elected officials accountable to have this discussion. the votes can change this if the percentages work out the way you say which is kinda the point right. if it is outlawed why isnt that under the same circumstance as other debated topics that threaten both women and men that is up to the state? defunding police, concealed carry laws ect ect. alot of health and saftey issues affecting young women in states in general yet this one is the one that MUST be ruled by supreme court and getting everyone angry?

 

as for the GOP hiding behind the supreme court. this is both sides and abortion has very much been a political football. please watch this from a very progressive krystal ball that explains how what we are doing in this thread is exactly the point and dems play their role well.

 

 

at the end you point out the hipocracy of the right when it comes to funding the very children they wish to protect. at the same time the left is saying that not only can we do it but its our god given right so keep your nose out..and help pay for it. if you think its murder, you better help pay for the childs health care? is there a option where people who don't agree with it not forced to help? 

 

both sides just instantly flip when it comes to women making personal medical decisions right down party lines. a second ago the left demanded med info and procedures under threat of losing their livelihoods without a care from the left and the same villianizing. 

 

not trying to argue as i think we mostly agree on this topic when all things boil down but i havent changed my stance on womens privacy, have you?

 

just some things to think about.

 

Buffarukus,

 

You put some time and effort into your response, so I’ll try my best to address every point you raised:

 

1. Interpretations of Poll Percentage Numbers: Acknowledging the enormous and highly nuanced diversity of thought on this subject doesn’t detract from the central point that these are many tiny Venn diagram opinion circles that often overlap. I’d like to see more Roe v. Wade polling data this month, but we may already have an ~80% national consensus on legal protection for the first 12 weeks (plus the usual list of exemptions…rape, mother’s life at risk, etc.). I would NEVER want to shut down the ~20% from expressing their points of view and trying to persuade the ~80%, but we also have time constraints and many other pressing issues to debate! I don’t think the domain of reasonably productive discourse on abortion lies anywhere outside the second trimester interval. By the way, don’t forget that the abortion stats breakdown is this: 90% occurring within the first trimester, 9% within the second, and 1% within the third. So any realistically productive conversations on abortion should be centered around exploring the nature of what’s happening in these (9+1)% cases.

 

2. Leaving Things Up To The States: You raised a good question of what makes abortion a uniquely federal health/safety issue, in comparison to other ones that are left to states. I haven’t yet thought too deeply on this question, so others here may have better answers. One part of it may have to do with the immense time and energy and cost that is involved with raising another potential human being. Another part of it may be just what ends up being impractical to implement, which is especially true if you have such large deviations between policies on a state-by-state level. I’d also add that sometimes a large percentage of Americans can simply find a state’s behavior way too ethically appalling, as was the situation preceding the 1964 Civil Rights Act and what I expect will be the case once the 13 red state abortion “trigger laws” come into effect.

 

3. Sundry Left-Wing Hypocrisies: I think we’re mostly in agreement here. No, the Democrats don’t hold any greater integrity than the GOP on numerous other issues and court rulings that you could name. Yes, the Democrats have been using abortion as a political football. I was never much of a COVID Karen, so I’ll acknowledge that point as well. We should note, however, that the left’s argument is that masks/vaccinations are related to the greater public health while abortion services are related to individual health….so it’s not a perfect “my body, my choice” comparison.

 

4. The Public Paying for Abortion: Yes, I’m a huge proponent of universal health care. I’d start with the United Kingdom version, but I’d eventually want an even more expansive version than that. So am I okay with forcing those Americans who are morally opposed to abortions to pay for these health services? Well…sure. Why? Because Rousseau’s “social contract” (the philosopher, not the defensive end!). I mean, no one is allowing me tax exemptions for my moral opposition to much of our military budget or to meat/dairy farm subsidies! Nor should they.

 

5. My Own Evolved Stance on Women’s Privacy: I come from an active Catholic family, so I started out very pro-life as a child and have evolved to very pro-choice (in terms of public policy) as a young adult. What mostly changed my opinion was learning about the personal experiences of women who had them and imagining what it would have been like to have “walked a mile in their moccasins,” as they say.

 

2 hours ago, LeviF said:

You know, I was almost ready to have a serious conversation with you until you dropped this and demonstrated how unserious you really are. 

 

You weren’t ever going to have a serious conversation with me. Your strongest rebuttal was going to be a large scary picture of Moloch drawn in crayon.

[BREAKING: SCOTUS to overturn Roe?]

On 5/7/2022 at 8:34 PM, LeviF said:

There is no moral imperative to educate or persuade those who would toss their children into Moloch’s gaping maw. 

 

First of all, “Moloch’s Gaping Maw” is a PERFECT name for a hard rock band. “Moloch” is equally awesome as a slightly edgy name for a pet dog…even more so if the dog is small and ferociously energetic like a corgi!

 

But getting back to the topic at hand, I can’t tell if you are intending to say that a woman who has an abortion is morally irredeemable? Going by Judeo-Christian principles, that is simply untrue. Forgiveness and redemption are two of its core themes, along with all that other important stuff like love, empathy, respect for the poor and the downtrodden, etc… Secular humanism has these same principles too, though I’m not sure if it applies for sociopaths (another topic altogether…).

 

I can’t tell if you instead are intending to say that it is not your personal obligation to educate/persuade a woman from having an abortion? Maybe not, but it is certainly your obligation to educate and persuade others on your moral values IF you want these values to become laws in a democratic society!

 

Lately, the GOP seems to want to hide their least popular ideas behind the Supreme Court and the 10th Amendment. That can be an effective strategy since we do live in a republic and not a democracy, but only up to a point. The political right seems to be careening past that point now. Why do I say that? Simple: Roe v. Wade scientific polling data is at ~30% legal in all cases, ~50% legal but with restrictions (rape, *****, life of mother, health of baby, first trimester only, no third trimester, etc.), and ~20% illegal in all cases. Comparative polling studies can maybe break that ~50% number down to ~35% up through the first trimester only and ~15% up through the second trimester (i.e. up to what is considered the traditional point of viability).

 

In other words, ~80% of Americans are effectively in support of Roe v. Wade, whether or not they realize it. Does anyone here disagree with my numbers? If so, state what you think those 4 numbers (30% + 35% + 15% + 20%) actually are in this country, right now as of May 2022.

 

If you want to talk about “moral imperatives,” I believe it is now my moral imperative to make sure your ~20% stays out of power this November and beyond. I care about all life as well, including the lives of scared and struggling young mothers who are stuck in red states…lives of women whom you castigate and judge for whatever personal reasons…possibly because you get fulfillment from assuming the white knight role for the innocent unborn…in which case I hope you’ll join me in making sure these unborn have universal health care coverage as soon as they are born…??

[BREAKING: SCOTUS to overturn Roe?]

On 5/6/2022 at 11:31 AM, 716er said:

That middle ground is Roe. Over 70% of Americans are behind that decision.

 

At the risk of speaking a bit too broadly and dichotomously, I think this is the crux of the debate’s heat: each side somehow believes they’re the ones who are the 70%. By the way, I wonder which side would score better on a basic test of gynecology and abortion facts?? Hmmm… No matter. The truth of the actual 70% will reveal itself once the Bible Belters begin rolling out their draconian state abortion laws. And in terms of political strategy, any failure to pass some version of the Women’s Health Protection Act (i.e., a federal codification of Roe v. Wade) can serve as a useful foot in the door for various far-left political goodies like socialized health care. Hey is it just me, or is anyone else suddenly getting REALLY horny over the prospects of eradicating right-wing zealotry this November?! I haven’t felt this way since the 2008 Kucinich campaign during the halcyon days of my carefree adolescence…my Lord…T.M.I.? Perhaps, but my Lord…

 

 

10 hours ago, muppy said:

this thread could get nasty. Believe it or not I have friends on  both sides of this issue. On my facebook the right to life side is quiet. the outrage on the other side is palpable. This is just one example of posts Im receiving lately.

 

Pro Choice does not mean Pro abortion to Many people.  But if I have to take a side I choose Pro Choice and will be watching with great interest this unfold.

 

Muppy!!! I like your new profile pic! I changed mine too!

 

I’m personally very pro-life but publicly very pro-choice. Often times, the “correct” public policy for such a heterogeneous society as ours can be defined as the “least awful” one. I sincerely believe that a “least awful” solution is the passage of the Women’s Health Protection Act. Those with strong opinions against abortion should focus on educating and persuading young women instead of legally restricting/punishing them.

[Is Roe v Wade Finally At Deaths Door?]

18 hours ago, Governor said:

I don’t have faith that democrats will do any of those things. I do think we’ll narrowly hold the senate and it very well may be Fetterman who saves our majority, which means we’ll be dealing with even more moderates moving forward.
 

Florida is gone. We have no shot there. As a party, I don’t want to see a lot of money wasted there. I’d rather see it used in Georgia and NC.

 

I would like to believe that Mark Kelly in Arizona will survive but I’ve still been hibernating and haven’t really looked closely at any of these races yet.

 

Everyone is awake now!

 

GFY Red States!

Red states, go fund yourself!

 

Okay, thanks for the opinions! Much appreciated.

 

On the progressive side: I’ve been texting my NYC peeps for updates on both the local and national scene. Incumbent grassroots campaign coffers are supposedly rapidly filling and third party enthusiasm seems to have collapsed practically overnight. There’s little chatter anymore about any so-called “hostile takeover” of the Democratic Party. Weeks ago, Nina Turner’s loss in Ohio would have enraged a lot of progressives. But now? Everyone seems laser-focused on collaborating to destroy our common enemy first, and it’s hard for me to disagree with that strategy these days. Maybe I’m also a bit afraid of Julia Salazar scolding me again over my Green Party dalliances lol…

 

The KEY factor by November is going to be the mobilization of college students and young professionals. Fear is a powerful motivator and maybe the most powerful one. If Roe v. Wade is overturned before the election, I think millions of normally apathetic voters are going to witness and freak out over the absurdly restrictive (and punitive!) abortion laws that immediately go into effect in many of the backward red states. The horrific impracticality of managing all the accompanying interstate legal discrepancies will likely become quickly apparent, too. And prospective voters with even the most modest capacities for foresight will soon reason that millions of forced pregnancies to go with a negligible social safety net is a recipe for societal chaos.

 

Election day voter turnout and polling data should ultimately guide any Dem decisions on ending the filibuster and packing the courts. Normally I am against using these strong-arm tactics, but not in special cases of voter mandates. Besides, any lingering notions of honor and civility in American political discourse are dead now. It’s time we acknowledge that reality and instead just prioritize enacting good public policy.

[Is Roe v Wade Finally At Deaths Door?]

17 hours ago, Governor said:

I like to win elections so I hope they overturn it quickly.

 

Mr. Governor,

 

I have always respected your political acumen, so I ask you: do you think we can reach the necessary Senate numbers in November?? The economy and inflation is still going to take precedence over social issues for many (if not most) voters.

 

California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire? Sure. That gets us to 47.

 

Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida?? All of these would get us to a more comfortable 55, but I’d say each one is far from guaranteed.

 

But even if we get up to 55, will the Senate Democrats actually have the courage this time to end the filibuster and pass the Women’s Health Protection Act in January?

 

And even if it passes, will the Democrats down the line have the temerity for court packing if the conservative Supreme Court attempts to kill the bill? This, of course, is predicated on the assumption that the Democrats would hold Congress and the Presidency in 2024 and beyond…a huge uncertainty.

 

In the meantime, two things that we have great control over:

 

1. Continued support and promotion of organizations like The Brigid Alliance that help low-income and other disadvantaged women stuck in backward red states.

 

2. Targeted campaign organizing on campuses and working-class neighborhoods.

[NFL Draft Haiku]

21 hours ago, WhoTom said:

A welcome respite

From the new stadium talk

No downtown dome, Dude.

 

What about Tremaine?

Have we discussed Edmunds yet?

He’s really good, no?

[NFL Draft Haiku]

On 4/20/2022 at 7:58 AM, JDHillFan said:

Bills score a draft coup

Draftnicks score them A plus plus

scottlaw still pissed

 

Your third line needs work.

It is one syllable short.

Otherwise, good job!

 

On 4/20/2022 at 8:26 AM, The Firebaugh Kid said:

Dream scenario 

We need a corner back but....

Jameson Williams. 

 

Long gone by our pick…

McDuffie, Booth, or Gordon.

Let’s go cornerback!

 

23 hours ago, Dan Darragh said:

Kiper Mel Kiper

Mel Kiper Kiper Kiper

Kiper Kiper Mel

 

Super lazy, Dan…

You write haikus like Kelvin

Benjamin runs routes.

 

 

21 hours ago, K-9 said:

You should start running

Haiku police abounding

Mind your grammar too

 

TWO BILLS DRIVE POETS:

we are counting syllables

and will impose fines.

 

21 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

No first round RB

ill say it again dummy

no first round rb 

 

I enjoyed this one!

The third line is redundant,

But it made me laugh!

 

[NFL Draft Haiku]

Respect special teams.

A new punter on day three?

Matt Haack is not good.

 

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

In the draft you must be a hunter

Go for home runs you can’t be a bunter

Our GM named Beane

Is the best that we’ve seen

Ain’t no way he’s taking a punter

 

4merper4mer,

Where is your haiku structure?

Can you try again?

 

 

51 minutes ago, Brennan Huff said:

The Bills are going to the Super Bowl 

i suck at poetry

And other things also

 

Poetry is fun!

No more negativity.

You got this, Brennan!

 

 

18 minutes ago, Dopey said:

The Bills are on the clock at #25

Who will they pick 

If it's a running back 

I think I'll be sick

 

Ugh! Et tu, Dopey?!

A name that is apropos…

Why do you hate Dan?!

[Cats and Stuff]

 

[Democracy’s Fiery Ordeal: The War in Ukraine 🇺🇦]

9 hours ago, OrangeBills said:

Correct. 

Leftist Europe and the United States should not have adopted idiotic Energy policies over the last 1-10 years.

The Western Libs about to learn a hard lesson

 

Um…sorta. Lessons abound for all! Let’s discuss:

 

What the left can learn:

 

1. The value of nuclear: Germany and most far-lefties should talk to France about it…the benefits, the costs, the technical risks, etc. They will feel much better about nuclear after this long conversation with the French. If Germany hadn’t abandoned nuclear after Fukushima, Europe as a whole wouldn’t be nearly as dependent on Russian fossil fuels as they currently are.

 

What the right can learn:

 

My goodness…where do I start…

 

1. Basic import/export facts: Russia makes up only a small percent (~7%?) of our total fossil fuel imports. Canada is our #1 exporter by far. Also, U.S. fossil fuel production has never gone down since Biden took office. Furthermore, no additional global fossil fuel production is necessary in order to facilitate cutting Russia off from the international energy trade market. A complete rerouting of the current trade market would suffice. If you don’t believe me, look up global import/export data for each major country and play around with the arithmetic for yourselves.

2. Keystone pipeline: It was always going to take several years to come online, so it’s not a viable solution for either the current Russia-Ukraine fiasco or the current COVID-related cost-push inflation fiasco.

3. Drilling permits: There’s no need to issue new ones when fossil fuel corporations already have an abundance of sea/land plots that are currently untouched.

4. Nationalization of energy: Lots of right-wingers want Biden to take firm control of the situation and alter our country’s energy trade market. Fine…but keep in mind that U.S. energy is controlled by private corporations, so you are technically advocating for at least a temporary “socialization” of the national energy sector.

5. Energy independence: You are free to prioritize this aspiration if you wish, but keep in mind that U.S. energy will continue to be a tradable private commodity on the global market. Therefore, it will continue to be subject to the global market whims of energy supply/demand laws, a.k.a. global cost fluctuations.

6. The many tentacles of the U.S. oligarchy: The most important point for righties to understand because it undergirds much of contemporary American politics, especially as it pertains to energy commerce. The fossil fuel corporate oligarchs have propagandized you to think that anthropogenic global warming is even a scientific debate. The manufacturing industry oligarchs are behind ridiculous Supreme Court cases like WVA v. EPA, which aims to undermine the practical federal power to regulate pollution. U.S. corporate oligarchs of all stripes have colluded to ensure opacity in international commerce transactions, which makes federal sanction impositions much more difficult to enforce (relative to the rest of the industrialized countries that comprise the West). I could go on and on with this subcategory, but you probably get the point…

 

What both the left and the right can learn:

 

1. Long-term planning: Everyone in the West should have started much sooner with renewables. Ideally, we all should have been dramatically increasing our fundamental R+D budgets during the era of the 1970’s energy crisis. By not doing so and by not having a sufficiently diversified energy portfolio at this point in time, we have ceded a lot of economic leverage to Russia (and China).

2. Basic patience: Putin invaded Ukraine rather suddenly (yah yah, I understand Russia had a lengthy military buildup at the border…). It takes a bit of time to reroute a gigantic global energy trade market. And given present inflation issues and risks of further energy supply shocks, it kinda makes sense for the West to slowly wean ourselves from Russian fossil fuels instead of forcing an abrupt cut-off.

3. Problems with U.S. imperialism: All of our Russian oil import issues could have magically gone away if we had healthy (i.e. open) trade relations with countries like, say, Venezuela. But in Venezuela’s example case, we are sanctioning their people to death because we hate global left-wing politics and we want to install our latest hand-chosen coup puppet, Juan Guaido, who will do our economically exploitative bidding in ways that no leftist would ever allow.

[Democracy’s Fiery Ordeal: The War in Ukraine 🇺🇦]

1 hour ago, dpberr said:

This conflict is about natural gas reserves and pipelines.  I think everything else is just story.  

 

Russia pays $7billion (over 5 years) to push their gas through Ukraine to Europe.  They also have untold billions of natural gas deposits in their part of the Black Sea. 

 

If you're Russia, imagine the control you'd have with the supply and means to deliver the supply by cutting out the middle man, not to mention you no longer have to pay Ukraine the rent for your sub base. 

 

If you're the West, imagine if you could get Ukraine to hand over their pipelines to a Western company.  It's happened before.  The whole Iranian mess begins with the US and UK overthrowing the elected leader of Iran in the 50s (Operation Ajax) because he didn't want to give the West the Iranian oil infrastructure.

 

Good interpretation, though the rest of that “story” does matter greatly. The Russian cultural ties to Donetsk and Luhansk matter. The strategic military use of the Crimean peninsula matters. Aggressive NATO expansions toward Russian borders (for the benefit of the military-industrial complex) matter. U.S. meddling into Ukrainian politics (for the benefit of the entire corporate oligarchy) matters.

 

But yes, we agree that energy is the underlying source of this international conflict.

[Democracy’s Fiery Ordeal: The War in Ukraine 🇺🇦]

22 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’ve been reading many of the thoughts shared here today.  Most of the back ‘n forth comes from muscle memory.   We’ll have the obligatory cult reference, a reference to a poster long gone from this site, Biden is a tired old man commentary, castigation of Trump, and so on.  My sense is most lack a fundamental understanding of what’s going on there, who’s to blame and how to fix it.  I am counted among the faithful.

 

Sure, but I’d like to think that the whole point of this thread is for everyone to gain a better understanding of the causes, who’s to blame, what’s going on currently, and paths to take that can solve the crisis. My own assessment, FWIW:

 

1. The causes: My one-sentence summary is that this is a typical clash between rival imperialist competitors (U.S. and Russia) in a major economic, cultural, and political market (all of Europe, really…not just Ukraine and the Slavic homelands).

 

A slightly more nuanced take requires thinking beyond the classic left vs. right political paradigm and into a populist vs. establishment one. Everyone here understands that Russia is a corrupt corporate oligarchy with an authoritarian ringleader (Putin). But would everyone also agree that the United States also functions as a corrupt corporate oligarchy whose M.I.C.-rooted foreign policy arm is driven by economic exploitation and not some noble illusory support of global democracy and the preservation of human rights abroad? How about the idea that Biden, Trump, Obama, living Bush, pervert Clinton, pantsuit Clinton too, dead Bush, Reagan, etc… were/are all war criminals and political duopolists whose variations in foreign policy decisions were/are pond ripples above an underlying tidal wave of imperialism? How Trump was another in a long line of heavy-handed American supremacists who may have been less of a bully interventionist (relative to Obama and Biden) in some key respects (Libya, Syria, Iraq) but more of one in others (JCPOA/Iran, Yemen, Cuba, Venezuela, certain dealings with Russia, also never got us out of Afghanistan like he promised, etc.)? How the M.I.C. budget keeps rising every year regardless of the political tribe affiliation of the sitting president, and this is why the American people are told that they cannot have basic things that every other civilized country take for granted like universal health care??

 

No?! OMG seriously? Then we have a HUGE problem here. Shall we carefully go over every single f*$king coup, regime change war, embargo, and sanction since WW2? The Afghanistan Papers? Collateral damage data from drone strikes? Yemeni civil war? Palestine? Activities in the Horn of Africa? OMG what we’re currently doing in Syria??!! What we’re currently doing throughout Latin America beyond the Cuba and Venezuelan sanctions?? By all means, someone PLEASE defend American post-WW2 imperialistic foreign policy for me…and do so from a secular humanist, Judeo-Christian, and/or Constitutional perspective…

 

<<< insert gif of Kay furiously shoveling popcorn (seasoned…no butter…f*$k the dairy industry too) into her mouth. >>>

 

2. Blame game: It’s all on Russia. None of their many listed grievances against NATO (many of which I found reasonable, up until the Ukraine invasion happened…) can justify this unprovoked military aggression against a sovereign nation. Putin did not come close to exhausting his diplomatic options.

 

3. What’s going on currently: We’ll just have to rely on the news media and navigate a bit through some of the fog of war and the propaganda.

 

4. How to fix the crisis: No idea. Does anyone, really? Direct combat between nuclear powers should always be off the table. Proxy combat is very treacherous, but it may eventually become necessary. Sanctions probably present the most viable options, unfortunately, but how can we tailor them in such a way as to maximally affect the Russian oligarchs and minimally affect the Russian people and the rest of the world? I’m very uneasy of the manifold repercussions of banning those oligarchs from SWIFT. One major leverage we do have over Putin is the fact that their national economy is extremely imbalanced and reliant on fossil fuel exports. Our very first option, of course, should be diplomacy where NATO offers a series of concessions (back to its original status during the 90’s?) in order to get Russia to cease fire and withdraw their troops. Western hubris and Putin’s crossing of the metaphorical Rubicon into the physical country of Ukraine, however, may have already rendered this option moot.

 

Something I want to quickly challenge here is the pervasive notion that energy independence through greatly increased domestic fossil fuel production is the West’s best solution. Never mind the anthropogenic climate change debate. I would encourage everyone to look at tabulated data of various energy categories for Russia, the U.S., Germany, the rest of Europe, and basically the rest of the world. Scan over what is exported, imported, and consumed in each country. Look at their trade partners. Look at production before and after the pandemic. The takeaway here should be that a concerted global effort to reroute energy trade markets at current production levels is more than sufficient to isolate Russia. Some basic degree of cooperation is expected from the major Middle East oil countries, however. I assume Venezuela and Iran will align with Russia, while China will try to play both major sides.

 

 

Thank you for your cathartic post, Leh-nerd, and don’t forget to vote in the 2022 TBD PPP Subforum Moderator election!! Who do you serve?! Who do we deserve?! Toward whom will you electorally swerve?

 

Leh-nerd: “Irv. IRV. For the love of God, Kay…IRV. Just please stop typing. Ugh. I could use another vacation in Florida. I hate you.”

[Democracy’s Fiery Ordeal: The War in Ukraine 🇺🇦]

On 2/15/2022 at 9:16 AM, Tiberius said:

I disagree. Putin wants Ukraine back. That's why he took Crimea. Russian history is, in part, a story expansion that way. Peter the Great, Catherine the Great all pushed off in that direction and Putin wants it back. 

 

UGH. Full apologies, Tibsy. You were right and I was wrong. I completely underestimated Putin’s capacity for economic brinkmanship. Is it safe to assume that Russia and China arranged a sweet trade partnership beforehand?? The latest I heard was that China was prevaricating on Ukraine.

 

 

30 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

We will see. The Blue and Red folk here are not currently encouraging but they are also not, thankfully, an accurate cross section through society. 

 

For people to think this war is a Red or Blue issue is another Putin victory. 

 

Yeah, the political tribalism at PPP is super annoying and is also missing the mark. Normally this is the moment where I would insert a lengthy rant against all facets of the bipartisan post-1989 American imperialism (with particular emphasis on NATO aggression, Yanukovych ousting, etc.), but the brutal reality here is that the Ukrainian invasion is 100% Putin’s fault and 0% anyone else’s.

 

At least Nord Stream 2 is dead now. GOOD.

[Democracy’s Fiery Ordeal: The War in Ukraine 🇺🇦]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Announcements this morning that Russia is withdrawing troop from border areas.  Conflicting stories whether its some or all. 

 

And as I suggested exit the manufactured narrative an attack is imminent and enter the manufactured narrative Joe Biden is a tough and effective leader that stared down Putin narrative.  All CNN scripts and talking points in the process of replacement with the new theme. 

 

Let's get those approval rating up!  Now there's an issue the Democrats can run on in November.  Which is "if we lose the House or Senate Putin will be emboldened".  I'll say one thing.  These guys are good at creating illusions.       

 

Good to hear!

 

A Russian invasion of Ukraine is highly unlikely because all the players in this stupid game are ultimately rational actors. Everyone here stands to lose so much more in the long run (economically and militarily) than they can ever hope to win. So fingers crossed, but yes it’s looking a lot more like political theater serving to benefit multiple international leaders, namely Biden and Putin, with their respective constituencies’ approval. The worldwide military-industrial complex is also benefiting greatly, of course, and this may very well be the main motivation.

 

Just quickly scanning through the posts in this thread…it appears that (yet again) the corporate mainstream media has been irresponsibly framing the debate through the lens of right versus left, GOP versus Democrats, and Trump versus Biden. Very few have been taking the far more important introspective approach and asking what our own country’s responsibility has been for this escalation? Why is it any of our business to dictate how economic trade relations between Russia and its nearest European Union neighbors are to proceed? As much as I personally despise the Russian natural gas industry, for example, doesn’t a country like Germany have the sovereign right to seek energy price relief from COVID-related inflationary effects? And what about the aggressive military posturing from NATO? Wouldn’t the United States feel increasingly threatened, for example, if China was moving troops closer to our borders from Canada and Mexico?

 

For anyone still wondering what Russia’s endgame is, the best guess would be “economic leverage into the European market.” All of Putin’s aggressive military posturing strikes me as his own unique style of diplomacy. Is he trying to rebuild the Slavic empire from the glory days of the Soviet Union, with the invasion of Ukraine as the first key step? Very doubtful. Way too costly, IMO.

[Politico hit piece on President Manchin]

On 2/8/2022 at 12:11 PM, Big Blitz said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/08/manchin-family-coal-company-00003218

 

OK, but I don’t see a single sentence in the article that is untruthful. The author calls out Senator Manchin for what he clearly is: a crony capitalist of the fossil fuel industry, legislating based on personal financial gain rather than what’s best for his constituents and the country and the planet.

 

On 2/8/2022 at 2:57 PM, Doc said:

When's the hit piece on Sinema?

 

One isn’t necessary because Sinema’s political career is already effectively over. Her resistance to Build Back Better was too radical a departure from the political platform on which she ran in Arizona. As a result, her state approval numbers are now in the basement, though I’m pretty sure she doesn’t care. She knew what she was doing and will be leaving Washington on a very golden parachute.

 

On 2/8/2022 at 5:55 PM, Demongyz said:

I bet he protected other families coal businesses too, and perhaps even protected the jobs of the workers for those mines.  This probably protected the jobs in many of those towns which make up a lot of towns in West Virginia.

A Senator looking out for the interest of his constituency indeed is a scandal, don't tell the rest of them to do that, people may not hate congress if they did.

 

I hate it when the republic works as designed.

 

Did you read the article?? He’s NOT looking out for the interests of his constituents! The article described two major ways in which this is the case: higher state utility costs and lower state health/environmental standards. I’ll offer several more that weren’t mentioned:

 

1. Build Back Better Act: About 70% of all West Virginians and about 90% of registered Democrats from West Virginia have been in favor of the bill. The inflation fearmongering and deficit hawkery that Manchin has used to justify his contrarian position (on a $1.7 trillion bill spread out over 10 years and embedded within a currently $30 trillion national debt, mind you…) contradicts all mainstream macroeconomic rationality as well as Manchin’s own lengthy legislative voting record.

 

2. General neoliberalism: West Virginia actually has a very rich history of labor activism, but center-right poopheads like Manchin have repeatedly gone out of their way to undermine it. We can start with universal health care and continue on down the long line of Reaganomics nonsense that Manchin has been peddling in opposition to the interests of the working class. West Virginians don’t even care about the coal mining jobs, per se. They care about jobs that provide an acceptable standard of living and that allow them to remain living in their home state.

 

3. Climate change economic legislation: Manchin has had numerous opportunities throughout his career to advocate for statewide transition program provisions in climate change-related bills that would have allowed coal industry workers to move into new careers (like in renewable energies?). These types of transition programs should have begun 40-50 years ago in West Virginia, or as soon as everyone realized coal was a dying industry. Manchin has never advocated for them. Instead, he has been downplaying, misleading, and flat out lying about anthropogenic global warming.

 

4. Progressive power shift: For the most part, West Virginia is a socially conservative state, so the social policies of progressive Democrats tend to scare them. Manchin’s (and Sinema’s) uncooperative antics over the Biden administration’s BBB Act, however, have done more to augment and embolden the progressive wing within the Democratic Party than any other political action seen since the Great Recession aftermath. It’s not uncommon for West Virginians to prioritize social policies over economic ones, so I’m sure many of them aren’t too happy with this development.

[*Approved* Information only and Spotify fallout]

17 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

So is Joe Biden, but people nobody is looking to censor the guy for spreading COVID misinformation! 

 

I'm not sure about the 'many' right wingers advocating a return to time when women could not vote, but to be clear:

 

• I stand with my friends @muppy and @ComradeKayAdams and their right to vote!  Why?  Because they are smart and women smell nice!

@Irv please be sure to add "Let Women Keep Voting" to your PPP platform!

 

Thank you for noticing, Leh-nerd! And did you know that us vegan ones smell the best? Yes, I believe this to be factually correct! SCIENCE, Leh-nerd. Envision a stalking field scientist/home invader, with the narrating voice of Richard Dawkins:

 

“As the vegan female variant of h o m o sapien casually emerges from her urban porcelain nest, the olfactory splendors of her dietary remnants fill the open room. Her whole-foods plant-based diet begets a rich aroma that conjures memories of my adolescence in Oxfordshire, running through wondrous dewy spring fields of magnolia, lilac, and wisteria. It is THE delineating signature of her presence, in marked contrast with the effluvious residues of her male counterparts who subsist primarily on meat, dairy, and eggs.”

 

EDIT: silly language filter for "h o m o" sapien.

 

[Where did the intelligent liberals go?]

On 2/1/2022 at 10:52 AM, All_Pro_Bills said:

That's exactly what I'm asking (bold above).  And thank you for responding with a lot of insights.  And sorting out the "liberal" label.  So I guess I'm a "classical liberal" or perhaps used to be one?  For reference my upbringing was in a Hubert Humphrey type household.  My family was heavily involved in the labor and civil right movement and associating with members of those causes shaped a lot of my views.  And when's the last time any leader from the labor movement was invited to the White House for a sit down? A party that claims to fight for the working person that ignores and abandons those workers while embracing all types of victims.   

 

And yes, I can't characterize anyone fighting for or advocating for the establishment, either the big government stepping all over the little guy or big powerful corporations as any kind of liberal.  To me that speaks of authoritarianism.  And ironically these are the same people shouting about dangers to democracy while ignoring their own inclinations and the dangers their views present.  They seem to support and crave mandates, censorship, things like that.

 

I also don't view this establishment, or deep state, or whatever we'd like to call it, as a left vs. right, liberal vs conservative thing.  I see at as a basic operating system running in the background no matter which party is in power.  I didn't vote for Trump in either 2016 or 2020 no matter what some posters here might think.  I didn't have any strong opposition to Bernie Sanders and was dismayed the party sabotaged his campaign twice by throwing their weight behind Hillary and dragging in Biden in 2020 to provide some image of a moderate to the voters.  The Democratic candidate that resonated best to me was Tulsi Gabbard but I knew she would never win the primary fight because of her anti-war stance.  An agent of Putin, right?  Because she doesn't want to see Americans fight and die for unworthy causes.  War which fatten their wallets and enhance their power.  My guess is that if Bernie or Tulsi happened to win the general election these establishment powers would have given them the same treatment they gave Trump.

 

I don't understand how people identifying with being "progressive" can advocate for a constant state of warfare.  And true, neocon elements do the same thing.  So as far as that goes I put them into the same category and consider them both a danger to peace and cooperation.  

 

I'm not a fan of Trump as a person and don't support most of his positions but that doesn't mean I don't support some of them.  And in many cases what I view as the extreme alternatives presented by progressives make Trump often outrageous positions appear to be moderate views.  I thought his tax reform was a corporate giveaway and a big mistake along with being a slap in the face for anyone thinking he was a genuine populist.  He's not.  But I also don't like the Democrats singular focus on identity politics.  I think that message has worn out its welcome.  I don't like woke or social justice ideologies either.  I view those people as mental and emotional weaklings.  I don't understand how the current woke military leadership thinks they can purge "political extremists" from the ranks and fill the services out with woke soldiers and win a war with them doing the fighting.  They just don't have the make up for it all.  

I could go on for another couple thousand words but I'll stop.  And I feel that I didn't abandon the Democratic party by adopting more centrist views (extremist views according to the current administration).  They abandoned me.

 

Great post! Hard to disagree with anything here.

 

Based solely on what you’ve typed in this thread, I might broadly classify you as a “populist centrist” rather than a “classical liberal.” Tulsi Gabbard resonated well with populist centrists in 2020.

 

Does that make sense? If not, maybe think geometrically. Think of the spectrum of politics as divided into a 2-dimensional box along left-right and populist-establishment axes, with the 4 corners as follows:

 

1. Left populist (roughly represented with Bernie Sanders).

2. Right populist (roughly represented with Donald Trump).

3. Right establishment (best represented with Mitch McConnell).

4. Left establishment (best represented with Joe Biden).

 

2020 Tulsi (she has moved further right and slightly more establishment since then) was the connecting tissue between corners #1 and #2. I think you may be somewhere along that nebulous middle edge region. Many Americans are!

 

Slight digression: Elizabeth Warren was the 2020 connecting tissue between corners #1 and #4. AOC is the heir apparent to octogenarian Bernie, but she’s been drifting toward corner #4 since March 2020. The civil war within the anti-establishment left (corner #1…my people!) that I alluded to in my previous post mostly concerns political strategy of whether to gain actual political power by unifying more with corner #2 (through third parties, most likely) or with corner #4 (through the Democratic Party’s primary process). The questions then become: which corner to trust more, what policies to concede, what policies to compromise on, what policies to promulgate, what policies to persuade others on, etc.? I don’t know if you have followed my PPP writings in the past, but I lean HEAVILY toward a corner #2 alliance because I REALLY can’t stand the pro-censorship and pro-military industrial complex/American imperialism that resides along corner #4.

 

Now whether you can be better classified as a “classical liberal” requires a bunch of tedious additional questions related to macroeconomics and Constitutional interpretations. Even though the “classical liberal” term has a specific definition rooted in history, I tend to look at it as synonymous nowadays with “libertarian.” Not the vague definition, mind you, of being against excessive government involvement in all aspects of our lives (because who isn’t, really?). I prefer a more tightly defined one that means someone who wants to reduce the responsibilities of the U.S. federal government back to what was carefully enumerated in the U.S. Constitution…and nothing more. Examples: are you against Glass-Steagall, in favor of Bretton Woods, against social security, in favor of a flat tax, against increasing federal debt during recessions, or in favor of union-negotiated health care plans over a socialized one? If you can answer “yes” to at least some of these questions, then you might be a classical liberal…and may God have mercy on your soul. You reside somewhere between corner #2 and corner #3.

[Maybe the Fix has been in.]

Super Bowl 56 does seem scripted to me: Tinseltown’s team moves back. They need to win over the fickle fans. Their new stadium opens up. They make it back to the Super Bowl for the first year that their stadium hosts it. Their adversary is a young Cinderella upstart team whose quarterback is played by Macaulay Culkin. Yeah right. All of us pro football fans are living in some type of Truman Show.

[So it's the Washington Commanders now?]

14 hours ago, peterpan said:

Redskin is not derogatory.  Or at least it wasn't.  It's well know that the name was loved by Native Americans and endorsed by them when first announced 90 years ago.  The logo was drawn by Natives and intended to be factually accurate, which it was.  

 

I have family that are part Cherokee.  They are big Blackhawks fans.  They love that their heritage honored by sports teams.   They prefer being called Indians  to Native Americans too.  It's mainly white people making these pushes, and a vocal minority of Natives.

 

Also check out the Google street view of 501 N Franklin St, Watkins Glenn NY 14891.  I'd post a pic if the site let me, but  It's downtown Watkins Glen.  If being called "red" was so offensive, why did so many Native people's call themselves red men??? (Fact is it wasn't historically derogatory)

 

And also, yes, these people do find Chiefs offensive.  Also with drawings of Indian heads or arrow heads or tomahawks.  They are offended by their own history it seems. 

 

Oh wow…you have completely ruined Peter Pan for me.

 

All this time, your refusal to grow up was a facade for a refusal to confront deep-seated bigotries toward Indigenous peoples??

[Should the Bills extend Edmunds?]

On 2/2/2022 at 8:14 PM, billsfan714 said:

You know, I went to profootball reference and compared him to Darius Leonard, who was drafted after him, This is what I found.

Solo tackles   Leonard 343  Edmunds 293

Ast Tackles Leonard 195 Edmunds 170

QB hits Leonard 20 Edmunds 15

Tackles for Loss Leonard 30 Edmunds 26

Sacks Leonard 15.5 Edmunds 5.5

Forced Fumbles Leonard 17 Edmunds 2

Fumble recoveries Leonard 7 Edmunds goose egg 0

Interceptions Leonard 11 Edmunds 4

 

And Leonard has played in 3 fewer games.

 

You do realize that you are comparing Edmunds to arguably the best ILB in the league…who is at a career production pace consistent with a first-ballot Hall of Famer, correct? Furthermore, you realize that Darius Leonard during his rookie year was the same age that Tremaine Edmunds is NOW? Furthermore, you realize that the Colts play a noticeably different defensive system with different MLB responsibilities than Leslie Frazier’s?

 

A more appropriate statistical comparison would be Carolina’s Luke Kuechly, who happened to have had a first-ballot Hall of Fame career.

 

For fun, let’s do a basic career statistical comparison of all three LB’s. Here are their season statistical averages (projected for a full 17-game season and rounded to the nearest whole numbers) for 10 basic statistical categories plus 1 team stat. The order is Edmunds’ followed by Kuechly’s followed by Leonard’s:

 

Combined tackles: 129, 157, 158

Solo tackles: 82, 99, 101

Assisted tackles: 47, 58, 57

Tackles for losses: 7, 11, 9

QB hits: 4, 4, 6

Sacks: 2, 2, 4

Forced fumbles: 1, 1, 5

Fumble recoveries: 0, 1, 2

Interceptions: 1, 3, 3

Passes defended: 8, 10, 9

Team’s defensive unit ranking (in yards allowed per game): 5, 12, 13

 

Keep in mind here that these individual statistical averages are comparatively higher for Kuechly versus Edmunds partly because they include Kuechly’s peak athletic years during his middle 20’s. Also keep in mind that Kuechly’s numbers are comparatively lower to Leonard’s partly for the same averaging-out reason (as well as the different defensive systems in which they played).

 

CONCLUSION: You know what? No, I’m not going to do this. Here are the stats. The haters are free to draw whatever conclusions they want. I’ve already determined for myself (which incorporates X’s and O’s analyses from people whose opinions I respect…think: Greg Cosell types) that Edmunds is a top 20 NFL LB and still has potential to be much more. Many of you probably gave up on Josh Allen when he was 23 years old, but I’m not going to do that to Tremaine. I’m more than happy to have him as a Buffalo Bill for at least 1 more year. He’ll have every opportunity to establish his true second contract market value next offseason.

[Early 2922 season prediction]

7 hours ago, Buffalo Barbarian said:

JA 3000 Terminator

 

I would even settle for the police officer from the Terminator 2 movie: fast, high motor, competitive drive, and quick recovery time from injuries. Best projected fit in the NFL: slot receiver.