GaryPinC

Me too, but it's getting him attention and money. Hopefully the page gets turned soon.

Except this isn't some stupid, impromptu schoolyard fight. This has been brewing since before 2014. On one side is a free country that doesn't want to give up their land and resources, the other is a dictator that is adamant in what he wants to the point of nuclear strikes. My thought for a solution is to hold internationally monitored, secured elections in the Donbas, Crimea, Kherson, etc and let the residents decide. But would Putin abide and respect any results he didn't like?

I certainly don't know what Putin thinks, I would just offer up the perspective that Russia has historically prioritized maintaining a buffer zone between Europe and itself: https://imrussia.org/en/analysis/3382-the-ballot,-not-the-bullet-russia’s-pursuit-of-a-geopolitical-buffer-zone. In this day and age, buffer zones should be unnecessary, thanks to nuclear weapons. But I agree with this article that Putin desires them for political purposes, to preserve his authoritarian form of government. No bordering a democracy whenever possible. He seized Crimea and supported the Donbas separatist movement in 2014 when Viktor Yanukovych was removed from power and a more democratic system took hold. Here's what he wanted the US and NATO to do to avoid the Ukraine invasion: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/us/politics/russia-demands-us-ukraine.html He wanted NATO and nuclear weapons out of all Eastern European countries. Preserving somewhat of a buffer zone but leaving these countries vulnerable to the Russian military. So, if Putin gets what he wants, a large number of bordering countries don't sleep at night fearing future authoritarian expansion. Since we didn't cave, he decided to take what he wants. Putin knows we're not willing to give him a buffer zone, because it entails giving land from democratic countries. We know he's at least bent on creating a buffer zone, at worst reconstituting the old empire. Until one side or the other is in a dire situation, what is there to talk about?

It's tied to his stories about deciding to come here, of which Allen and Diggs played a huge role. I've heard the entire story at least a few times (Bahamas, instagram contact, LA, etc) so I'm ready to move on but why single out the LA part? It's just part of the flow of rehashing the entire story. They also spent more time talking specifically why they love it here (people are happy and helpful, food, etc).

I rewatched the film of him after Sunday's concussion. Keep in mind Tua may believe in hiding any concussion symptoms. When I think of a back injury, I think of weird posture, most often displayed in the positioning of the shoulders and muscular tension in the upper body. Arched back, grabbing at of jerking your posture to alleviate the pain, etc. There's none of that displayed, his shoulders and upper body are well aligned and overall relaxed. The only thing he does is shake his head and briefly grabs at is his head and chin strap. After his fall and stumbling, the trainer comes over and the first thing he appears to do is maybe grab at his back (which is why I think Tua is BSing) but he may have also just been trying to hold Tua up.

All great points. I definitely think Tua played a role in hiding his concussion by blaming it on his back But you cannot absolve at a minimum the training/medical staff. No way should he have been cleared to go back in so soon after, regardless of what he was blaming. I don't know the details of the NFL rules but there's the damage from the concussion and there's post-concussion syndrome which is delayed effects. I've seen kids/people who've sustained concussions and seem fine initially only to have neurological and coordination symptoms set in 15 minutes to hours later. To keep it simple, I have no confidence that Miami's staff had Tua's health in mind because of how rapidly he came back. I doubt his eye's/pupil and motor coordination was re-evaluated at halftime. Probably just passed the baseline test.

Yes, and you continue with your helpless victimhood. Everyone else must change because your body has changed.

Haha, well go to the bar or stadium then! Yah, it's hard watching at a home with people like that. Rooting for the other team is always a great option if it's not the Bills!😂 Just to be clear, I don't advocate doing whatever in public. I stay standing if everyone around me is standing and sit down when everyone else is sitting. As long as I can see, I am very conscious not to block the view of those behind me. But if everyone stands, then so be it. I also feel that fandom has evolved to more people standing longer at games. And I understand that's frustrating to those who want to and even have to sit, well instead of blaming others, change your situation to your liking.

Ok, but I often like to be able to jump up and down while I'm cheering loudly. Plus I can high five more people while standing. Ok. What I see is you whining everyone should sit and cheer as you see fit.

Well, I would count you among those people.

Okay, this is your truth and that's fine. You take the longer and more cerebral approach. Just watch from home if it bothers you too much. But those annoying fans also set a louder, more fun atmosphere IMO. I'd rather have those than the fans who sit on their hands the entire game only cheering for touchdowns or those 4-5 plays.

Yes, it's difficult when you refuse to understand that people have their own truths. I was at a handful of Bills games, University of Michigan and MSU games during the 90's. There was significant periods of standing at all of them depending on the section. Including entire games. Is long term standing more prevalent today? I think so. I certainly stand for big plays and won't stand for long if everyone in front/around me is sitting, but I understand many feel more engaged in the game by doing it and have certainly felt that way also at times.

Good sir, I am very sorry to hear of your physical limitations impacting your ability to see the game. Having to deal with the pain must be very frustrating and I can understand how much easier it would be for you if everyone sat. Being a long time season ticket holder, you have to realize that long periods if not entire games of fans standing is just the reality of the stadium. It happens at many pro and college stadiums. Myself, I go with the flow and would like to point a few things out to you about my truths which differ from yours. Myself and family are composed of men over 6 feet in height, with decent shoulder width. In sold out games, surrounded by other good sized people, it is impossible to sit in our seats with shoulders square unless leaning forward at various angles which becomes uncomfortable and compromises the view. Standing usually requires angling shoulders, but becomes more comfortable than sitting as it strains my back less. Also, jumping up to only cheer for a big play involves having to wiggle and negotiate to sit down properly again without infringing on others. And in a big or good game, there is lots to cheer for so it naturally becomes easier just to stay standing and sit at breaks. I'm 52 and if standing an entire game (if needed) becomes too much, I either won't go or will pay for bigger/more comfortable seats. As a STH, why not talk to the Bills about your problem and consider switching seats (clubs) or asking them make a section(s) sit-only? Or do like others in a similar situation and watch from the comfort of home? You are the one with the impediment yet you demand all others conform to your needs? Stop calling other fans uncaring, selfish, rude, etc. It starts with you.

Pittsburgh's stadium also hosts the Panthers and High School football playoffs (or used to) during rainy November. Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. That's a lot of use for a soaked grass field. Probably the biggest reason it looks so bad in December.

I don't disagree with your emphasis on our defensive failures but to believe Belichick deserves no special credit for that game plan is extremely ignorant. Our offense was breathtakingly successful and efficient back then, especially that year. Let's cut through the crap and focus on this: our amazing offense got the ball on the 10 with 2:16 on the clock and could only provide Norwood a 47 yard opportunity. That was plenty of time for our well-oiled machine to score 7 under most circumstances. How is that on our defensive failures and why does Belichick deserve no credit for this and throwing us off our game in the first half?

Between Detroit and Cleveland, we have no claim on being the hardest-luck fans.

Yeah, Hackett clung to Marrone for too many years and picked up his bad habits.

Watching that game on Thursday, the feelings from the 90's came back: our offense is nearly impossible to stop on a consistent basis and our defense is more than good enough to shut any team down. That's how it felt at the end of last year except for those blundered 13 seconds. We've picked right back up in 2022 and added a Von Miller. I think our consistency and camaraderie on both sides of the ball supersedes those explosive 90's teams. Our D-line is already frightening even as it is still developing, our rookie DB's are adequate and growing, then we get our lockdown corner back. F being afraid of anybody. I'm mostly curious as to who will beat us and how? So flexible on offense and strong on defense with years of playing together in the same systems. We'll have plenty of tests, it'll be fun. I hope they set a goal in the locker room to go undefeated through the super bowl, just for added focus against shooting ourselves in the foot. All those turnovers Thursday didn't faze us one bit. That was the scary part (for the rest of the league).

Oh. Are you sure? I thought his name was pronounced Tru-a Dungo'highflow-a

So is Singletary. Josh is essentially taking some of his carries and coaches need to get Josh to execute his ambitions more carefully.

Our superbowl hopes and the dominance of this team depend on Josh. Our hopes for a decade or more of franchise dominance depend on Josh. He stupidly absorbed many direct hits yesterday, and many on throwaway plays like 2nd and 9 from the 40 yard line. To answer your question, it's wear-and-tear on his body that accumulates and will shorten his career, and one bad hit during an awkward body position may derail this season entirely. That said, I want Josh to run, but Diggs needs to take him aside and teach him when not to sacrifice your body for the extra yards. Diggs is one of the smartest I've seen about avoiding hard hits unless it's a critical situation. Our coaches need to stop spoiling Josh and get the ball to Singletary more on the throwaway downs and field position. Let alone when we are up big. That's his job and since last year he seems really good at it. Coaches pandered too much to Josh's running proclivities yesterday, IMO. Josh needs to play his game while also being more respectful of the long view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford–Brown I saw the recruiting focus documents from someone I know who worked here in Cleveland for Sanford Brown. They don't care about your grades, disadvantaged kids from the Cleveland school district were perfect because they want a better life and when most of them failed they left and carried on the best they could. The school expected them to fail and got as much federal money for them until they left. They executed a version of a Ponzi scheme where they had goals/quotas for new students specifically from the Cleveland district. Was that the only students that went there? No, but it was most definitely a focus. If you could open your mind and look beyond your Wight Wing Wetard, you'd realize their approach made a certain amount of sense. I would guess that's why the loans of students from these types of schools were the first to be forgiven. Many of these schools are just money making scams. Even if you get through their program, the quality of the education is poor and doesn't translate well to further education nor the workforce.

Well, the for-profits do engage in a fraud that is very hard to prove. They target inner-city and economically disadvantaged kids who don't have the education and study habits to be successful at college. But they sell them the hope of a college education and string them along for a year or two to get the max federal loans and when they inevitably flunk out, the school has our taxpayer money and the former students all the debt.

I've heard left-supporting people cry about how Bush and Congress "gave away" 700 Billion to auto, banks and housing through the TARP program so why not student loans? https://www.thebalance.com/tarp-bailout-program-3305895 "Why TARP Didn't Cost Taxpayers As of 2018, TARP didn't cost the taxpayers anything. Instead, the Treasury received $3 billion more than the $439.6 billion it disbursed. Of that, $376.4 billion was repaid by the banks, auto companies, and AIG. The U.S. Treasury made a profit of $66.2 billion from these companies because it bought shares of the companies when prices were low and sold them when prices were high. The Treasury made $5 billion on its TARP fund investment in AIG alone.8 The programs targeted to help homeowners allocated $37.4 billion. As of September 2018, they spent $27.9 billion. These funds were never meant to be repaid. The TARP program quickly turned around the banking industry. In May 2009, Fed Chair Ben Bernanke said that the results of the banking system's "stress tests" were encouraging. The tests found that nine of the country's 19 largest banks did not need to raise additional capital, nor did they need to offset future write-downs of the toxic mortgage-backed securities. In fiscal year 2010, the banks paid back $110 billion and another $38 billion in FY 2011. TARP provided a surplus to the budget in those two years as banks paid back the bailout." Sadly many Dems (especially far left) will never understand the difference between giving away free money and alleviating financial burden/crisis but with accountability. They could have done so much with reducing/eliminating interest rates early in the loan then raising them every two years. Keeping the rate low for reliable payments, setting up a public service projects volunteer program that goes towards reducing ed. loan debt without having to be hired in to the sector. Empower people, you left wing idiots. Wait till DOE loan payments start again next year and the faux morons will start crying because they didn't realize interest continued to accrue during the moratorium.

That's awesome but I can't understand for the life of me why they brag about all this? Why not keep quiet and continue? Is the morale and bragging points worth the loss of deception or are they sure the Russians figured it out already?