Dr. Who

Yes, I know. My point was that the debased ideological worldview either embraced or nihilistically employed as a means of manipulation by those running the show cannot sustain for a prolonged historical period even sham civilization.There's only so far technological mastery can take you. The cosmos is much more mysterious than a mere positivist, utilitarian scientism can grasp and eventually the attempt to build a coherent society around such a limited understanding of reality with the proviso that one allows innumerable individualist, subjective "add-ons" so long as they don't interfere with the dominant power structure (i.e., "liberal tolerance") will fail. The snowflakes are not capable of institutions that truly allow for human flourishing, achievement, and tradition which properly understood is not a sluggish, reactionary instinct, but the passing forward of vital principles that permit memory and imagination to construct novel futures that maintain the authentic goods of the past as living realities. So, in short, I don't think "they" will be around centuries from now to spew lies and dim-witted fables. Either civilization will have recovered or we will fall into a dark ages incapable of supporting even the simulacra of academic life.

"You have a republic if you can keep it." The historians who will conclude this farce a permanent blemish on Trump are a hypothetical lacking consequence. We are, indeed, already mainly technologically sophisticated barbarians, but if civilization in any substantial sense persists generations into the future, the institutions of learning will have had to renew themselves with respect to truth and the integrity of inquiry. If that happens, the scourge of history will be the decadence of congress, the absolute cynicism of the chattering class, and the corruption of ruling elites pandering to a debased, demotic appetite for a simplistic ideological world picture. The real villains are the wealthy leftists engaged in an oligarchic will-to-power that abuses the Constitution for political expediency.

Tom Brady must have bet the Texans.

Don't worry. Lots of weird folks here. You fit right in.

Look, isn't it obvious? He broke the moral law by defeating Madam President and then he broke the law of the Deep State Constant which is practically the same as gravity and then he broke the law of ingratiating himself to the people that count (i.e., not the flyover deplorables clinging to religion and guns) and finally he broke the law of surrender which has been the GOP appeasement policy since Reagan left office.

I'm notoriously bad at getting links to work, so maybe this won't. The list starts at 32 and works up. I kept expecting the Bills to show up anywhere from 20 upwards. Turns out they have Allen and the team listed as eighth best. Don't know who their experts are, but this is one of the more encouraging assessments I've seen. http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/future-qb-rankings-rating-all-32-nfl-teams-situations-from-worst-to-best/ss-BBX3mdv?ocid=ientp#image=26

Funny in a dark, bitter way.

I am perfectly fine with your kind of critical spirit. You're one of the posters I always read because you have insight and interesting comments. This is quite different from the kind of crusading negativity that rubs people wrong and there is a lot of that.

Ahh, you know he's pulling double shifts here for all the folks disappointed Josh Allen had a good game.

OP begins "Against a team he was supposed to put up good numbers against, Allen comes through." After briefly giving relevant statistics it ends, "He was calm in the pocket, went to his 2nd and 3rd read, put a lot of passes right on the money so the WR could get YAC, beat the blitz on a number of occasions, used his legs when the opportunity presented itself, and he didn't throw an INT for the 5th straight game. The young man is growing as a QB and that should be evident to all." Neither the tone, nor the substance has any connection to the idiotic hyperbole with which you conclude your assessment. Ridiculous counter-narratives don't work that well when everyone can read the original.

Some folks on this board are not going to like this. OTOH, they probably won't be here for most of the week.

Go hibernate. Okay, you can stay up, but right to bed after Walt Disney. (This will not make sense unless you are old.)

It's still an equivocal situation that could go either way, but some folks who are habitually a downer on Josh Allen are certainly more invested in being right than hoping to be proven wrong no matter what lip service they may give to the latter. I think nearly all who support Allen are not "irrational fan boys" which is a cheap, ignorant defamation. Most are aware that Allen needs to improve and show consistency, just as they are aware that Daboll is an uneven, perhaps below average OC and that the talent, while upgraded, is still lacking. Year three should be determinative. RIght now, I am happy to see progress, hope for consistency, and enjoy that we are mid-November and playoffs are still plausible, though not at all certain.

Yes, yes he is . . . and you are a cultist for finding fault with it.

A number of folks will tacitly admit it by being scarce this week.

Yes, I know. Only when Trump does something precedent becomes a unique, treasonous event.

Honestly, the reasons for the divide are substantial, not surface. The left is totalitarian. The only abiding peace they permit is a cowed or absent opposition. Trump annoys progressives because he is immune to their intimidation and too rough a figure to feel the sort of attacks and coercive behavior that were effective for generations against standard GOP champions. He doesn't care that liberal elites think he is a bufoon, nor is he interested in the praise of academics and media talking heads. The folk, who are equally fed up and alienated, and know they're not stupid just because they disagree with leftist consensus aren't going to disappear when the Trump presidency is over. Yes, I agree, but when Trump does it to the snowflake in Ukraine the media cabal suggests it is perhaps an impeachable offense. Just pointing out the ludicrous and the hypocritical.

Obama fired W's ambassadors en masse back in 2008. No one said a word.

And somewhat inscrutable. I am unclear what your crime supposedly is. In any event, maybe we can start a thing. I apologize for the fella who is sorry for you being you.

Your analysis is on point as usual. The only rejoinder I would offer is that the cynicism of the Dems is such that I suspect they believe the GOP less likely to engage in such political expediency, partly because many conservatives have principles and they would not want to engage in actions harmful to the republic (the left interprets this as an exploitable weakness.) Also, the Dems count on the entrenched bias of the deep state, education, and media to consistently promote their causes and to dismiss as illegitimate any charges brought by Republicans. They are not wrong about that.

Ahh, I like French maids.

I agree with you, but after a loss the usual suspects are going to be making hay. Even after a win they are questioning Allen when most of the questioning should be directed towards the coaching staff imo. Allen is certainly not a sure thing, but I think he is likely to end up very good if developed correctly with more resources devoted to getting elite playmakers while he is growing into the kind of qb that can carry a team. It's not a good sign, however, that the coaching staff appears to be coaching all the bravado out of him.

Your original comment appears to be an irrational denigration of Allen. If you have a problem with Daboll's playcalling, you need to explain yourself better.

Except for those fourth quarter comebacks . . . patience is for grown ups. He's coming along fine.

fify