Bob in Mich
-
Posts
1,748 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Bob in Mich
-
-
I put this post in the wrong thread. When I saw this thread title I realized it belongs here. Sorry for duplication
................
Say you need a new coat before next winter. You go to your favorite coat emporium and they are having one of those sales where the coats are 10% off this week, 20% off next week, and so on up to 80% off in June.
If you fall fall in love with a particular coat you may be tempted to buy it at only 10% off. If you are patient and realize that most all of the coats will keep you warm, you wait it out.
So, must we have one of these coats before it gets snapped up by other shoppers or will the bargain coats work for our remaining needs? Seems to me like we are waiting for the less flashy, functional players..... on the cheap when those players start to get nervous that they may not find a chair once the music stops
-
3
-
-
Say you need a new coat before next winter. You go to your favorite coat emporium and they are having one of those sales where the costs are 10% off this week, 20% off next week, and so on up to 80% off in June.
If you fall fall in love with a particular coat you may be tempted to buy it at only 10% off. If you are patient and realize that most all of the coats will keep you warm, you wait it out.
So, must we have one of these coats before it gets snapped up by other shoppers or will the bargain coats work for our remaining needs? Seems to me like we are waiting for the less flashy, functional players..... on the cheap when those players start to get nervous that they may not find a chair once the music stops
-
The realization that you care more about the team winning than the team, is sobering. Makes one feel a bit foolish
-
9 minutes ago, Nextmanup said:
The funny thing is *most* major league coaches, in any sport, tend to be this way.
They have learned 1 way to do it coming up through their career, and only 1 way.They then shove that system onto the players even when it doesn't work.
A master chef can make a great meal no matter what's looking good at the market that day.
Not the same with professional sports coaching.
Obviously, Ralph was a huge mistake. That point is beyond argument at this point.
So the only question to ask, right now, is why is Ralph still around?
Money? Terry actually thinks he'll turn it around? Terry is waiting for their #1 replacement option to become available?
If it's the latter, they should still fire Ralph immediately.Retaining him at this point is bad for everyone involved. It makes Pegula look like an idiot or a jerk. It casts a really dark shadow on the Sabres brand, as viewed from around the league.
And it puts poor old Ralph is a really bad spot too. He ran out of things to say a long time ago.
He should be removed immediately, with an interim put in place until their ideal replacement candidate can be made available.
So again, why in the world is Ralph still around?
Good question, isn't it?
I think it was Lance Lysowski(sp) that said this season, due to no fans, management is way less responsive to the fan complaints. That makes the most sense to me.
-
https://www.moviefone.com/movie/festival-express/17780/video/oqKNHKSi/
This movie was kind of fun. This is the trailer. I hadn’t heard of the tour before stumbling upon the movie one night
-
1
-
-
Might be because of watching Slapshot the other day but at this point, the playoffs are gone so how about entertaining me?
Call up Oglethorpe, buy a few rolls of Reynolds Wrap, and trade for 4 or 5 tough guys that can stand up on skates. See if intimidation can be successful again in the NHL. What is the worst that could happen? We lose?
I started off kidding but am not sure if I am kidding or not now that I look at it. Lol
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, SoTier said:
You are hiding behind semantics over what constitutes a coup just like Republican Congressmen hid behind procedural issues on the second Trump impeachment. A coup is defined as a sudden, violent and illegal seizure of power from government. That's exactly what Trump wanted to happen on January 6 when he sent that mob to attack the Capitol -- a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power. It's no different than some two-bit strongman in some banana republic forcing the national legislature to vote him "president for life" with his personal guards holding guns to their heads except that Trump couldn't find enough sycophants within his administration to pull it off.
The GOP has had the welcome mat out for white supremacists since the 1960s when they welcomed arch-segregationists who had defected from the Democrats over civil rights. Trump openly courted the support of white supremacists in both his presidential campaigns. Feel free to lie to yourself about this if it makes you feel better.
Well if you want to call it a coup then, fine. I stand corrected but I don’t think there is much disagreement between us as to what the mob wanted and why
As to the other point, is it that Trump support is primarily due to racists, my experience is different I guess. I know a lot of very good non racist people that support him because of perceived tax cuts or abortion prevention. Have Republicans been willing to accept votes from racists? Yes but as I said, much of his support is from other sources
-
10 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
I disagree with your last sentence. He gives them the worst chance of winning. He just lost the Presidency, and the Republicans lost control of both the House and Senate during his presidency (well, the Senate shortly after because of the Georgia special runoff, which occurred under his tenure).
His "base" may love him, but traditional Republicans are starting to change registration to Independent, if he runs again he will lose the suburban voters once again, and as with the last election it will drive higher Democrat turnout.
Why Republicans have this slavish obsession with this guy is a mystery. You can get things like immigration and tax policies, Supreme Court, etc. with an actual conservative Republican candidate instead of a failed, not really republican, not really conservative candidate. If you keep Trump, you lose the presidency again, and if he gets more candidates like Greene to run for Congress, you'll widen the Democratic majority in both the House and Senate. When the Tea Party came to the forefront, they got people like Murdoch in Indiana and Akin in Missouri put up as Senate candidates, and they got killed because rational people realized there was no way they could vote for such people. You'll get the same thing if a preponderance of Q Anon types get put up in 2022.
Good points. I hope you are right about Trump losing future elections. If the transition had failed via the Capitol mob actions, another 2020 election would have been unnecessary though. The win streak would have gone on with another Trump term...until the war anyway
Part of why Trump could be more successful in future elections than you predict he should be, is due to his ability to turn out the vote. I realize he turned out opposition too, but convincing voters that they are being victimized has proven more successful than traditional policy campaigns. 74 million Trump votes even after 4 years of his antics is frightening in my opinion.
-
1
-
-
Impeaching and removing Trump would have led to a Pence administration. Hardly a coup, Lonnie
-
A coup implies overthrowing the existing government. In this case we had a president trying to stay in power so the only requirement for the mob was to prevent the transition. So, not really a coup attempt but it is obvious that there was an attempt at the Capitol to interrupt the transition process.
The racism talk gets a lot of mileage and certainly some Trump support flows in through this door. I think the majority of the support though comes from Republicans that simply came to really enjoy winning on their personal pet issues - immigration, abortion, taxes, Supreme Court, etc, after the Obama years. The Trump administration gave them a win streak and quite a few of them became a bit drunk on the power. They don’t necessarily like Trump but he gives them the best chance at winning
-
First ex-president to flee the country?
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, JimKellyTryouts said:
Cover1 showed a few plays on their breakdown which had some motions to help ID coverages, so it's not quite as black and white as it may appear. I agree it's shown up a good bit less, esp jet sweeps and whatnot, but it has been there.
From what I recall, lots of the motion and position of the safeties pre snap helped indicate what seemed to be a 0 look, only for the Ravens to haul ass and give a completely different look (Diggs first overthrow, the second overthrow when he was open was a result of Lee Smith doing some motion, among others)
I thought the motion was primarily so that the QB could identify the type of secondary coverage, as said in the above post. In zone, the D doesn’t scramble to man up on the motion man because they aren’t covering specific players. In man you see the D cover guy running to match the motion.
I don’t know this, maybe some of the more savvy can help, but if the coverage scheme was not being disguised, would the motion be necessary?
-
Should those MAGA hats go in the trash or are those recyclable ? Asking for a friend
-
I yield the remainder of my time
-
34 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Not only that, but Mitch thinks that by (allegedly ) not publicly supporting the (alleged) impeachment while pushing forward with the (actual) impeachment, he saves the republican party.
Criss Cross Bobby, Criss frigging cross.
Dammit, I was certain it was a cross criss but your point is well made. You have convinced me that it is indeed a criss cross.
-
1
-
-
I was for this new impeachment all the way up until Mitch (reportedly) signaled that the Republicans now think it would be good to impeach him. Mitch is very calculating and is hyper partisan so if it advances his goals, suddenly I have to wonder how far the impeachment process should really go. Is the impeachment now doing the Trump enablers in Congress a favor?
-
I think in a game this big, pregame jitters are to be expected. For me, that is not an indicator that I think we will lose, just that game time is near.
For way too long in big games we needed a few bounces and a couple of turnovers. Those were necessary because basically we weren’t the better team.
Today is different. Today we don’t need those breaks to win. Today we just need to play our game - to execute. We are the better team. Go Bills!!!!
-
3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
I do have it friend, you might be surprised to find that I’m a good and decent human being.
Shocked! I would be utterly shocked. Lol
Have a Merry Christmas, Lonnie!
-
1
-
-
It seems that the Trump plan now is to go full steam ahead on attacking the Biden family. If by Inauguration Day, I believe the new plan goes, Joe Biden can be ‘proven’ to be a criminal, Trump will be obliged to delay the transition of power. Never mind that anything at that point could be no more than accusation, that will be plenty enough for the MAGA crew to cling to. Just guessing but seems to be plausible
-
I heard that blanket pardons were all the rage these days. Why won’t Joe just pardon himself and his family and friends if there were any crimes done? Easy peasy!
-
I don’t know posters here well enough to know if anyone has any real insight but it is a question that has bothered me.
There has been a worldwide drive to develop a vaccine to get us all out of this pandemic. With several nations and companies working on this vaccine now, we have seen a few shining successes, a few fairly successful, and some announced failures that will result in significant delays.
Why aren’t financial arrangements being made to allow the manufacture of the highly successful vaccines by the other companies, at least in the short term to get us past crisis mode? I realize that different processes may be involved and manufacturing facilities cannot be put in place in a matter of weeks but it seems when some companies are predicting yearlong delays, what is preventing such arrangements?
-
40 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
So, government (R/D/I) is complicit in the spread of the virus across the board, and responsible for what— 20% of the cases and deaths? 30%?
I have the same questions regarding Cuomo and downstate NY btw. It’s basically thunderdome down there. No rhyme, no reason, anyone can come from anywhere close and infect everyone they come in contact with. Yet, sweet old Lenny healthy as a horse and sweet a rhubarb pie is going to deplete the Covid ozone if he has turkey with 9.75 people from 3 different zip codes?
I have no idea how much protests or rallies contributed to the spread.
Try to imagine that you were calling the shots to try to limit the spread and that you were going to ultimately be held responsible for deaths on your watch. Ok, you there? If so, now ask yourself if it would be wiser to restrict contacts until the vaccine arrives or wiser to give in to complaints from those that want to open up everything and to take a gamble with your people.
It seems to me that when one has no responsibilities, it is easy to say, let’s take the risk. If you are not responsible and made the wrong decision, oh well. If the lives of others actually rest on your shoulders, there is more pressure to take the safest course. If it were me, I could more easily live with unhappy citizens and dead local restaurants than a bunch of dead citizens
-
Just now, oldmanfan said:
Oh, the fake Internet tough guy is back. I think I hear your Mommy calling. Perhaps it's nap time?
As for the video, we don't nee this kind of crap in this country. We don't need a civil war sparked by the narcissistic impulses and overblown ego of the man-child that leaves office next month.This MI state rep is way out of line here, imo. I believe she has been hit with loads of vile threats since she was in Rudy’s MI hearing. I believe those are the people who she is angry with. In her position however she should be either not responding at all or looking to de-escalate
-
27 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
What percentage of the total number of infected citizens in the country would you write off to the hundreds of thousands of protestors in the streets this summer? What percentage or deaths?
Big picture—should political leaders have spoken out forcefully about mass gatherings, and/or banned public demonstrations to stop the spread? Should we have had greater outcry from the science community about super-spreader events?
Lenny, we have witnessed the outrage and cries of oppression over requests to just wear masks. Telling people that they could not leave their homes in order to protest government actions would have not gone over well. In my opinion, that is the chief reason government officials did not try to prohibit protests. It wouldn’t have worked and the required attempted controlling measures would have made riots much more violent
Know anyone with a disease? Read this
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Minions? I have minions? Do they clean gutters?