GaryPinC

How is this any different than Trump getting his name put on the spring 2020 stimulus checks? In either instance no one directly asked for votes, just different tactics to make it clear who was responsible for the "free" money. Did any of you right wingers get outraged back then? However tasteless both times, I don't remember any legal repercussions for Trump, should there be some now for Biden?

In my experience, people of any age, experience, and maturity tend to respond to how you approach/address them. There's a lot of wisdom in what you're saying, and key is the fact that both sides have to want to resolve it through compromise. I have to disagree with you that both sides are ready to resolve it. Further, even if both sides were to cease-fire right now to negotiate, I don't trust Putin to negotiate in good faith, instead using it to regroup. To avoid the initial conflict, his terms for the entirety of Eastern Europe were not remotely realistic, just insincere. Zelensky has been pretty consistent about Nato and even at August's end was open to negotiate the Donbas/Crimea region: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.france24.com/en/live-news/20220308-in-nod-to-russia-ukraine-says-no-longer-insisting-on-nato-membership This should have sparked mediation and I guarantee you mediating diplomats reached out and made the effort with the Russians. I think Putin's going to try a Stalingrad-style assault on Kviv from Belarus, if that fails then maybe he might negotiate if he doesn't nuke. He's simply not and has not been interested in peacefully resolving this dispute through compromise. I also disagree that rarely any dispute is solved without mediation. World War II in both theaters was enduringly resolved just fine without mediation. Nations have disputes all the time that they resolve without mediation. Disputes in personal lives, same. But both parties have to be interested in compromise and we just don't have that here yet. "All I Really Need to Learn, l Learned in Kindergarten" is a great essay about how to live your life but not much help with conflict resolution I'm afraid.

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.