All_Pro_Bills

I've heard of mixed marriages. In fact, my niece married a Jets fan but it didn't work out!

BEA statement puts estimate of 2022 US GDP at $26.15 Trillion. https://www.bea.gov/news/2023/gross-domestic-product-fourth-quarter-and-year-2022-second-estimate Fiscal year 2022 defense spending around $778 Billion. A fun fact is that if you add the budgets of the next 7 biggest spenders China, Saudi Arabia, India, France, Russia, Britain, and Germany the US spends more than those 7 combined. But where the $1.9 Trillion quote in the post a couple entries above is coming from who knows?

British film awards come under fire because all award winners were white. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64707017

That at a minimum a partial fallacy. Let's use NYS as an example. These were NYS top 10 exports in 2021. Gold: US$14.7 billion (16.3% of New York’s total exports) - my notes this is the NY Fed & NYMEX Diamonds (unmounted): $9.6 billion (10.6%) - my notes this is the diamond district in Manhattan Hand-drawn paintings, drawings: $4.5 billion (5%) Jewelry articles clad in precious metal: $3.9 billion (4.3%) Rubies, sapphires, emeralds: $1.3 billion (1.4%) Silver: $1.137 billion (1.3%)- my notes this is the NYMEX Parts of assembly machinery: $1.135 billion (1.3%) Aircraft including engines, parts: $1.06 billion (1.2%) Integrated circuits (processors/controllers): $1.01 billion (1.1%) Original sculptures, statues: $911.8 million (1%) Here's Kansas 2021 as an example: Aircraft, aircraft parts including engines: US$2.1 billion (16.7% of Kansas’ exports) Beef (boneless, fresh/chilled): $1.1 billion (8.6%) Soybeans: $607.3 million (4.8%) Corn: $583.7 million (4.7%) Wheat, meslin: $500.5 million (4%) Beef (boneless, frozen): $472.9 million (3.8%) Grain sorghum: $379.9 million (3%) Ethyl alcohol, other denatured spirits: $232.9 million (1.9%) Dog and cat food for retail sale: $214.6 million (1.7%) Modems, similar reception/transmission devices: $155.8 million (1.2%) NYS is a great example of a financialized economy where not much in terms of real good is produced. Kansas is not. Which has more "value"?

When you get right down to it the debate isn't so much about what books get approved or banned. It comes down to who gets to decide which is which. Until recently school boards and educators such as teachers had free reign to decide. And then parents got involved, raised their concerns and objections, organized and then began to get some say which resulted in the transfer of control and power to make those choices of the hands of schools and districts. What the people supporting the schools and districts, and in most cases they're liberal educators or their supporters, are really pissing and moaning about isn't in opposition to some form of censorship. They're mad because power has been taken away from them.

Rather than something to do with the actor or act itself, I think it all boils down to an individuals willingness and ability to objectively assess a situation rather then do it subjectively by employing various experience filters, personal preferences and biases, likes and dislikes, to the target topic. A subjective example might be person 1 does X and person 2 also does X. I like person 1 so it was okay but I don't like person 2 so its not okay. Like an enemy kills 100 civilians and that's a war crime but our side kills 100 civilians and that is brushed off. And objective assessment would be eliminating my like or dislike of person 1 or person 2 and simply assess the action X on its own and conclude both person 1 and 2 were either both good or both bad. In the civilian example above both are bad. When it comes to political debate we get a lot of subjectivity and while I can admit some level of that behavior in my views it would be nice if the people doing it with regularity would admit to it too. To those folks, admit your biases, confess your sins!

Exhibit A. Find this recent bombshell story on any major US outlet from an investigative reporter with a pristine record of uncovering the truth. But this time.. crickets. No rebuttals just some mild sideline bashing of the reporter which is typical of these liars. I rest my case. https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/world-int/22973-us-and-norway-blew-up-the-nord-stream-pipelines-seymour-hersh.html Other stories he broke: My Lai Massacre (1969): Hersh broke the story of the My Lai Massacre, in which American soldiers killed hundreds of Vietnamese civilians. His reporting, which won a Pulitzer Prize, revealed a military cover-up and sparked outrage across the country. Abu Ghraib Torture (2004): Hersh's reporting on the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq exposed a culture of torture and impunity within the U.S. military. His reporting won a George Polk Award and helped to bring about significant changes in military policy and public opinion. Nuclear Weapons in Pakistan (1998): Hersh's reporting on Pakistan's nuclear program, including its collaboration with North Korea, was controversial and initially met with skepticism. However, subsequent events confirmed much of his reporting, and it is now widely regarded as groundbreaking. CIA Domestic Spying (1975): Hersh's reporting on the CIA's illegal domestic spying program helped to expose the agency's abuses of power and contributed to the creation of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Iran-Contra Affair (1987): Hersh's reporting on the Iran-Contra scandal, in which the Reagan administration sold weapons to Iran and used the proceeds to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, was instrumental in exposing the corruption and illegal activities of high-ranking government officials.

Because in general all the other news organizations fly cover for the government. I think that's it.

If I've got it right the Bills organization structure has both the GM and HC reporting into ownership. So, they're sort of co-GM's. I think that's a problem but one that's easily correctable. If I'm Pegula, I would address that by changing the reporting relationships to HC to GM and GM to owner. That's put Beane clearly in charge of the draft and all other personnel decisions. At this point I think its better to concentrate this responsibility with the GM to remove any real or imagined bias towards picking defensive players. I expect there's not much of a chance this happens. I agree they've neglected the offense for one reason or another and not surrounding your QB with protection and more weapons given the way the league favors the offenses and how unique of a talent they've got in Allen is a major blunder. Whether its McDermott's influence or defensive bias on the selections or how the board is set up. I think they still need to go BPA vs. pure need but if there's a close score between an offensive vs. a defensive guy the offense needs to take priority.

I'm operating under the assumption social activists believe anyone can pretend to be anything they desire. But alas, what matters most is not the rules but rather who is entitled to make them.

What about the war in Yemen? Is Biden standing up for what's right there? In a war prosecuted by the Saudi's with assistance and consent from Washington through war and starvation and sanctions of vital food and medicine, 10's of thousands of civilian men, women, and children have died. We've already established that killing civilians is a war crime by charges against Russia for that act. Even our VP made such statements last week. So if our government and the President are "fighting for what's right" and is compelled to seek war crime charges against killers of civilians and our Saudi allies are killing civilians shouldn't the US step in to stop the carnage and charge the Monarchy with war crimes? Why aren't they doing what's right? And if the Saudi's are committing war crimes and Washington is looking the other way while consenting to their actions doesn't that make Biden a war criminal? Using your logic I'd suggest the people running Washington are isolationists that are ignoring injustice. But my conclusion is they don't care who lives or dies as long as their agenda moves forward and challengers to it are neutralized. And that's how the world works. Not like the good vs. bad fairy tale you peddle.

Suppressing evidence hides the truth. Why don't you want the truth to be heard and seen?

Unless anyone can cite some clear, specific, and present danger, the right of the people to know the truth and the legal rights of any defendants to due process of the law outlined by the 6th Amendment takes priority over any theoretical security concerns. Otherwise, such a contention is nothing more than an excuse by the prosecution and the government to hide and suppress exculpatory evidence. Government motion denied.

That question is totally irrelevant to this conversation.

You're just repeating a false narrative. Forensic investigations proved shots were fired from locations different than those where officers implicated by the coup instigators were locating during the event. No officer was arrested, tried, or convicted of killing any protesters during the maiden riots dispute your contention they somehow killed protesters. The event proved a catalyst and convenient excuse to overthrow the elected government. But the US government would never participate in such a nefarious action because we always wear the good guy hats. Even through I could name about 3 dozen times Washington has toppled foreign governments. But you can look it up too if you'd like.

A coup engineered by the US State Department's Victoria Nuland against a democratically elected government because they wouldn't play ball with Washington. Who just so happens to be back in charge of the operation after a 4 year vacation 2017 through 2020. Washington loves democracies but they also love monarchies, dictatorships, and theocracies as long as they go along with the regimes objectives and rules. When they step out of line, then the plot changes. But the fools that think our government hold a special place in its heart exclusively reserved for democracies will believe what they want to believe.

That outcome is an extremist position that isn't going to happen regardless of the circumstances that end the conflict.

So the "plan" is to ignore all potential catastrophic consequences and risks up to and including the extinction of all life on Earth to "show them" you mean business?

That's an objective, not a plan. We agree on the objective but I expect we might disagree on the "plan". The original "plan" was to impose sanctions on Russia and seize and freeze central bank assets and those of key confidants of Putin in order to squeeze them into submission. Win the conflict economically, cause political trouble for Putin at home, and allow Ukrainian forces to prevail on the battlefield. That didn't work. Sanctions had little impact. Russian planners had prepared them for those actions. They can effectively execute trade and commerce outside the dollar based financial system. And are teaching others to do the same. Right now I'm not sure what the plan is other than to continue this dance of increasing escalations between Russia and US/NATO/Ukraine in the belief that both sides think at some point the other side is going to back down. You seem to believe there will be some point where Ukraine will achieve victory on the battlefield or the Russians will conclude the war is not winnable and will retreat back to within their borders. I disagree. I don't see Ukraine achieving a military victory or Russia and Putin backing down. And right now, although there are discussions within NATO countries about the logistics of armaments, I don't see any signs the US side will back down either. Or any mutual recognition that the only path to a solution and outcome is negotiating some settlement between the parties. So for me that escalation path points to the ultimate escalation. Someplace nobody wants to go. But here we are racing down that path. That's my concern. Their "plan" is nothing short of taking the risk of nuclear annihilation and killing every living thing on Earth to achieve "victory" nobody will be around the celebrate. That's not being an isolationist or appeasing Putin. That's a perspective of logic and sanity in the face of the insanity of those in charge taking us all down a dark path.

That's something useful idiots say when they want to shut down free thinking citizens and avoid any reasoned discussion.

That's what people brainwashed by government war propaganda have said about others questioning the merits of every war. Unless you are 100 percent obedient then you're helping the enemy. In a word that's stupid.

That's why I cringe when some official claims the science is settled or claims everyone agrees with the consensus view on one thing or another. Rarely is anything ever settled, as you state science is evolving with new information, discoveries, and ideas. Just this week I read a Op/Ed from a doctor claiming the mRNA vaccines were "completely" safe for young children. And vaccination would prevent them from getting sick and transmitting the virus to adults. That statement is false on both counts. As for safety, how can he know that without long term health data? How can any medical professional be so negligent? Nobody can be certain because there is no data to support that conclusion.

Rather than a few $1 bullets from the planes gun use a $400K missile to take down a $12 mylar balloon. That's likely representative of how efficiently the $800 billion defense budget is spent. Migrating bird flocks and ballooning festivals and events beware. The Biden administration is on the job.

The idea that Washington's support of Ukraine going to facilitate regime change in Moscow by replacing Putin with some compliant leader willing to do the bidding of the US and the West is a neocon fantasy at this point in the conflict. The biggest danger to the world from this point forward will come when it's obviously and unavoidably clear that one side or the other has a clear advantage and path to victory. At that point, the risk is what might the "losing" side do to avoid or delay defeat? In the case of Russia, a potential to deploy and use nuclear weapons and in the case of the US/NATO any decision to directly enter the conflict. Which would then eventually lead to the risk of the nuclear option. Either way I find it amazing how officials and media everywhere are whistling past the graveyard downplaying and dismissing these risks as the propose and commit to escalations. Where else do they think this is going to lead?

There are plenty of examples. But I am 100% certain you have absolutely no intention to agree with any of it or alter your view no matter how many valid examples I cite or how compelling an argument I might make. But for giggles. Failing education of urban children and poverty. I cite test scores in Chicago and Baltimore where most kids can't read or do math at grade level. 60+ years and going. And I'm not making an either/or argument say liberals don't but conservatives do so please don't go there either. Thx.