leh-nerd skin-erd

Many years ago, I decided to stop fretting about who was drafted, where they went, and whether or not it made sense based on the need at the time. I read reports, follow to an point but beyond that I just like to enjoy draft day. In that regard, I was very happy with the JA pick, and had no preference other than I thought Rosen really had the potential to be abrasive and perhaps lacked critical leadership skills (admittedly based on very limited information). So, I was happy they took him, spent no time worrying about draft order and what they gave up to get him, the knocks on him and settled in for the show. What a show! The very cool part of the JA years for me has been the return of fun to the Buffalo Bills. He’s been such a special player to watch, he seems like a very good guy, and the dynamic of the team improved so much. I would have loved to see a SB win or two along the way, and the pain of a bad day still stings, but damn if this is not a great ride. Kudos to BB and McD for what they’ve done as well, of course, and all the players who connect with each other and the fan base.

Welp, he didn't fumble so it’s probably for the best.

This has been a bizzare series of posts. That people are prone to hyperbole with no intent to actually discuss is not unusual. However, you teed up any number of ways these guys coins explain the threat they are babbling on about. So far, but it seems the major threat comes from folks in red hats, and some conspiracy-minded accusations that you are running a Q&A grift where you won’t answer questions on how they think. Fascinating. Ps: If it turns out you really are running the grift as Billsy suggests, I knew it all along.

At first, I was thinking the OP was on to something. It was like I thought I saw completely dominant, yet not flawless, offensive execution against a team at the very least in the upper echelon of the NFL. But after reading the concerns about touches, I thought “Wow, I never thought of it like that, the whole touches thing.”. Then, I read your reply and I was like “Wow, I think I was right the first time and wrong the second.”. In the end, after decades of angst and frustration following the Bills, having this particular concern on this particular day is pretty freakin awesome.

I see language gender as part of the last vestiges of the patriarchy, Mupp. I’m doing my part to detoxify the civil landscape. Noted for the future though. 😎

Seniorita Muppito Concetta Alonso, I wasn’t intending to suggest you individually embraced divisiveness. While we do not always agree, and you were somewhat mean about my avatar in calling me a dullard, I appreciate your feedback and have learned and grown from it. Big picture, however, it’s impossible to deny that divisiveness is a national pastime. There is ample evidence that the Dems participate and encourage exactly that type of behavior on a daily basis, while some folks don’t want to acknowledge it.

You may indeed, sir! This is a discussion forum, and I'm happy to hear your thoughts. Your point is noted, and I don't disagree. I believe, and have shared with others on this board, that context matters in politics. For all the back and forth, all the ugliness on this board from time to time, there are precious few people read into all the relevant facts on any given topic. There are fewer still who possess the expertise to diagnose and offer opinions that are objective, nuanced and thoughtful on any given subject. What that leaves us with is a whole lot of 'self-interest'. I've mentioned in the past that one of my good friends is a position of authority at the NYS AGs office. He's a declared liberal, and would not have anything positive to say about Trump. However, when we discuss issues in context, he's thoughtful, reflective and responds accordingly. For instance, when someone here declares that no one is above the law, and I point out that there have been many, many people above the law throughout history, the response might be "Well I don't want to talk about that.". In his case, when I dropped an Eliot Spitzer reference during a Trump conversation a few years back, he acknowledged the point, laughed and acknowledged he didn't see that whole debacle coming. The point is simple, really. When I asked Matt_in_NH to share his feelings about democrat divisiveness, it's because context is important to me. That he opted to pass on any additional dialogue is fine, but from my perspective, his opinion lacks the thoughtful and reflective response that might help me understand why one is a major hot button issue, and the other is not. Anyway, thanks for the response. Go Bills.

My assessment thus far: Matt_in_NH poses a question about whether or not we are purposefully being divided; Matt brands himself a conservative of sorts; When posters respond, Matt_in_NH often responds rather aggressively and in a divisive manner; When questioned about prior divisive behavior in keeping with the question he posed, he shuts down like a church during COVID. In making a point about Trump and legal challenges to the 2020 election, he cites former AG Barr to buttress his point about divisive political manipulation; Prior to commentary about election integrity, AG Barr spoke directly about the extreme divisive political manipulation engaged upon by the democrats as it related to the aftermath of the Trump election, that which Matt_in_NH seems to prefer not to discuss; Theory: I surmise that Matt_in_NH may be artificially intelligent and purposely trying to divide us. This begs the question for non-cyborgs: Why is political and societal divisiveness applauded and supported when undertaken by one party and its supporters, and a threat to our very way of life when the shoe is on the other foot? I was going to start my own topic, but this title would have been far too long. @muppy, I am calling on you to contribute.

Some people get ##@!ed. Some people don't get $#@@ed. Seems like a waste of time to worry much beyond that. This is really about the soul of our Nation, so the badly %$#@ed can feel good about their sacrifice because their %$#@ing helped so many others feel good %$#@ed. The one thing about working with your children to make smart choices with regard to college, loans, debt and education is that in spite of missing out on the Magical Lucky Charms loan forgiveness program bennies, you have clarity and don't need a dressed up Go Fund Me campaign to improve your position.

So, circling back on this topic before you move on. You brought up the divisive nature of politics, wondering if it was purposeful etc. You were decent enough to acknowledge the legitimacy of Trump's election, something most of the d-leaning folks don't do here. They typically ignore that issue, occasionally suggest they don't want to talk about that sort of politicking, then mumble something about cults and posters past. Here's my question for you. If you agree that Trump was elected fairly, how do you square up leaders of the democrat party literally claiming he was not the legitimate President of the US? How do you square up the former head of the CIA claiming he was guilty of treason? How do those actions not impact trust and confidence for democrat and undecided voters at election time? Hillary Clinton, and the DNC of course, worked directly with a foreign national to spread disinformation about her opponent, and were accused of (and settled) election integrity issues because of it. Do you see that as normal election banter, the back and forth that we see at election time? No big deal? Or, perhaps, it's something you find unsavory but felt it was appropriate to have two completely different standards in an attempt to defeat Trump? I guess from sitting here and reading what you've shared, I'd think you would be outraged by the behavior of the dems from 2016-today. In fact, the WH press secretary was questioned about her comments that Trump stole the election back in 2016, which certainly would seem to cause faith in our election process.

I didn't say it was a good thing, Jam-Master T. I just offered what I think is a glimpse of the future and how the d party will manipulate emotion moving forward. Why would they offer $50k in debt release when they can accomplish their goal by offering $10k, and then revisit it again in roughly 2 years? Props to you on your hard work and growth as a father and human being. A strong social safety net is an important part of a civilized society, but on some level, the sort of personal accountability you demonstrated is exceptionally important to round that out. In addition, charitable giving to help the less fortunate that stays out of the government system is vital as well.

If you add Government to the lost of corporate entities, we agree there. Nothing sells quite like "the end is near!". As for coming together, there is precious little indication that that's on the table. Rather, it seems that one side wants the other to come down on their side, not necessarily to meet in the middle with some grand compromise. I would also suggest that the illusion of consensus, especially for the greater good, was often just that--an illusion. The war in Vietnam comes to mind, for example. Members of the US government delivered a clear message there. This is an interesting take. You start a thread questioning whether or not we are purposefully being divided, and it takes you to page 2 to be purposely divisive. Why? What's in it for you? Why derail your own thread? As for the subject--which media outlets do you follow without question? The one owned and directed by one of the richest men in the world? Is that the one beyond reproach? That particular publication missed on a number of stories of late, no? With all the vaunted sources highly placed, and frequently cited anonymously, that publication missed on a few stories? When did they report the Clinton/DNC connection to Steel and the dossier? The Hunter Biden story? The tea leaves on the outcome of Mueller? When did they report that Obama/Biden knew of the Clinton connection to Russiagate and disinformation? In what other aspect of life do people flock to a multi-billionaire, looking to monopolize virtually every commoditized product in the free world, for objective truth and guidance? Finally, you took a hard line position on Trump and Stop the Steal. You've suggested unconstitutional action in pursuing, and failing, to convince the court(s) that fraud was afoot. I can live with that, though there is virtually no time whatsoever to adequately investigate voter fraud after a presidential election. On the other hand, it wasn't a year before the election that Sens Warren and Klobuchar, among others, expressed grave concern about the integrity of the elections and some of the systems in place. Nobody in the dem party or free press blew a gasket, nobody wailed at the wailing wall, nobody worried that such explosive commentary was an afront to our system of government. How did you feel about dem leadership declaring the Trump election illegitimate, or that he was in power as a result of a coup, or that he was guilty of treason back in 2016? Or that one of the leading voices and most powerful men in the world ominously predicted that the intelligence agency had "six ways from Sunday" to get someone? Was that just political pillow talk? Fair game? The forerunner to "Trump is an illegitimate President" was "The Hanging Chad", and the forerunner to "Stop the Steal" was "Illegitimate President". The table was set by Warren, Klobuchar et al for Democrat's screaming stolen election if Trump won. And, why wouldn't it be? They successfully impacted all 4 years of his administration because people bought the stories they sold.

He buys down student loan debt in phase 1. Phase 2 has already started…”It’s not enough…people are still hurting…let’s get to $50k”, and they settle on the next $20k. Money is a powerful drug.

Thanks for bringing this to the table. Very fair question. I can’t speak to something as deep as AI, but it seems to me the two most recent elections had remarkable similarities. Allegations of election thievery; Allegations of inappropriate conduct with women; Allegations of influence peddling; Allegations of racial intolerance; Lying liars lying often; Allegations of inappropriate relationships with foreign adversaries; Allegations against the offspring of candidates; If it’s an issue, it’s because it works.

If only the lives of law enforcement were as valued by the liberals nationally as they are when protecting the elite in Washington….

These things are as scripted and planned out as any big budget Hollywood production ever is. In the calm light of day, analysis is simplified to the least common denominator of what Biden, Trump or whomever said. It’s all designed to herd the simpleminded in one direction or another. As for doing something stupid, you’re onto something. Big picture, it’s not just the right you have to worry about. It’s the left acting as if they are the right, and fundamentalist agnostics doing the same. Let’s be fair—there are folks on this board, right now, who wailed about Putin’s Russian disinformation campaign now quoting and promoting stories from Putin’s Russian media outlets as gospel. This is after their warning that Putin’s brand of Russian authoritarianism would spread on Trump’s watch….only to see it actually occur on Biden’s watch. I had a specific focus here, watching certain Biden supporters who complained about Trump supporters becoming the mirror image of certain Trump supporters. It’s interesting to see. Stay tuned, you’ll get a mention before too long my friend.

I’m torn on watching it. There’s so much potential for manipulation in this sort of thing, intentional or otherwise.

Mup, I’m unaware of a Youtube video, and wondering from your perspective, what it revealed? In reading the recap of the interview on ABC, I’m struck once again on how to thread the needle between horrific allegations against Araiza, the attorney’s statement that an apology/donation might have solved his problem, and what she said here.

To assume the imagery was a mistake, or his rhetoric being walked back because it was unpopular is a huge mistake imo. There are millions and millions of dollars spent on this sort of thing. Speechwriters are trained in the best way to elicit emotion, engagement, disgust, suspicion, etc. They are trained in psychology of speech delivery, tempo, building anticipation, the general ebb and flow of delivery. There are experts galore looking at data, focus groups and general sentiment of prospective voters. The photo of Biden above, looking like an enraged dictator and raising a call of action against the opposition, is anticipated, planned and expected. There is an entire industry devoted to the significance of color choice, and they used it for desired effect. Looking at the replies here, you see some Biden lifers speaking about the opposition as evil and deplorable. They are the easiest to manipulate, and those that produced the speech may not know the, by name, they know them by predisposition. Then you have the people pointing to the parts of the speech that are inane and innocuous, thinking of course, “What’s the harm in this?”. The answer is “Nothing, but that wasn’t the overriding message delivered.”. To draw a parallel, a person telling someone they like their haircut is nice, but in context, doing so after they punched them in the face 5 times makes you question the real message delivered. Interestingly, you can see a cross section of typical replies of early Trump supporters here. You recall them—those that didn’t alway like his rhetoric, didn’t always like his tone, but believed in the message he delivered. Security at the southern border comes to mind. Frankish, for example, seems content to tiptoe around the issue. He mentioned earlier he didn’t like this sort of speech, then later on compared this very unquestionably divisive speech by any account to strategizing in a typical NFL game. I suppose if the Dolphins defensive coordinator got a podium, a national audience and 24x7 coverage of everything he said and stated “The very existence of the Buffalo Bills and their fans pose a threat to our very way of life, and are coming for your soul”, I could see that parallel.

"Creative!", circa 1956.

If Brett Favre was Brett Biden, this story never woulda seen the light of day! On the bright side if he's having an affair with his dead brother's wife, it's just Mississippi burnin!

Exactly. "Illegitimate elections", "coup", and "treason" lead directly to "stop the steal". One never happens without the other. Everybody complains when the other guy does it, but loves the heck out of it when it benefits them politically, financially, or emotionally. One point of disagreement, though, is that Biden is simply "trolling" Trump. Trump trolled Clinton with 'lock her up', something that never was going to happen. Reid trolled Romney with "He doesn't pay taxes". Biden sent the FBI to his house, gathered documents clearly relevant to the issue the DOJ is pursuing, but also apparently grabbed information that was not part of the search, held it, reviewed it, and has suggested there is no need for a special master because it will impact their investigation and presumably they are beyond reproach. That's not trolling, that's using the full weight and power of the US Government in an attempt to overwhelm and destroy the target. He did that because when they surveilled his admin, colluded with a foreign national to spread disinformation, tried to have him removed from office on he heard she said her cousin told her, and a host of other issues, you all were fine with it. When that worked, he supersized. Now it's Trump and all those who voted for him. A lot of people will not pay attention to the rhetoric (he's a politician and lies regularly, they'll say), but a lot of people agree. There's nothing new here, he's following a pattern of demonizing folks that don't support him by calling them dangerous and suggesting violence might be necessary. It's worked all throughout history. The only real point to be taken from this is that that sort of governing works, and is very popular with millions and millions of people. My thought is...when the time comes in the future and the opposition needs destroying, what's that next phase going to look like? *Edit--It's possible that the DOJ is super duper concerned about the material in his possession, and that this really was an issue of national security. The problem there is after branding him an illegitimate president, in office as result of a coup, surveilled his team, colluded with a foreign national to spread disinformation to influences voters, and apparently worked with social media to deep-six stories that might impact the outcome of elections, there are serious credibility questions that must be overcome. It could NOT be political, but really, isn't everything?

In a twist that surprised no one who is a student of human nature, the man who mocks people of faith, religion and discussions of good v evil... Drinks deeply at the majestic altar of Biden, replete with pageantry, fire, brimstone, the eternal struggle of good v evil, and the desperate fight for, as Pastor Joe calls it, the very Soul of the Nation. They say you can't make this *&^% up, truth is, you don't have to.

I love this argument, it's one of my favorites. The point is that to the voting public, context usually matters. Sure, the occasional self-righteous poindexter rolls out with "I don't want to talk about that!!" when wanting to fixate on a particular subject, but when it comes to hot button issues like this, the question "What exactly is the standard criminally, civilly, and what's considered acceptable in spite of rules that may date back as far as 1776?". In context, all the hand-wringing liberals worried about Trump and authoritarian behavior have been completely comfortable with the following authoritarian behavior: Alleging collusion with Russia while being completely comfortable with collusion with a foreign national and a phony story; Expressing concern about a second or third hand retelling of an allegation of Ukrainian shakedown while being completely comfortable with an on-camera acknowledgement of a Ukrainian shakedown; The DOJ executing an armed raid on the opposition party purportedly searching for illegally held confidential+ material, while extending unprecedented courtesy to allow a candidate judged to be exceptionally reckless with confidential+ material to perform self-reported wrongdoing and delete whatever it was that she felt the FBI didn't need to see; Outrage over claims that an election was stolen by one candidate, complete comfort with allegations of treason, illegitimate elections and a president installed in a coup by their faves; The seizure of non-relevant material and documents, including allegations that material protected under attorney-client privilege was seized, in spite of the size, scope and number of agents who participated in the search; The request by the DOJ to deny Trump's request to assign a Special Master to provide additional oversight on this matter, in essence saying "Trust us, national security is at risk!" , a standard used throughout history to bamboozle the American people and potentially represent that pesky darkness where democracy is thought to die; I dunno on this one. We've been told by the highest ranking FBI agent in the land that no reasonable prosecutor prosecutes folks for sending classified+ material on the G-mail, that factual information destined to impact voter choice at a critical election was Russian intel, and that social media outlets manipulated data that might have changed the outcome as well. I think the wisest course of action is to recognize that whatever side you're on, the other side is demonstrably full of $%$# and the government should not be trusted implicitly. You n' yours should remember how it feels, you were there a couple years ago.

40 with this gem….”…the former President filed a bull### motion…”, that is, he availed himself of his rights under our system of justice. That’s not bull####, son. Next up from 40…”He didn’t turn surveillance off….obstruction” and concurrently “Why doesn’t he just submit if he has nothing to hide???”. 🤦🏼‍♂️