All_Pro_Bills

Social activists make bad administrators because being good at criticizing others isn't a core competency for a job requiring the skills and experience to actually getting things done.

My anonymous sources are telling me the NYT anonymous sources are full of crap.

You can feel the desperation when they come out of the gate swinging the Nazi card at a Hispanic woman.

Philly fans are likely too busy rioting in the streets to offer up any commentary yet..

After that holding call I turned off the game because the call right or wrong just gifted the Chiefs the game. There was no suspense left at that point. We all knew it was going to end on a short last second field goal attempt and make. And whether or not the holding offense met the criteria it was the first defensive holding penalty against a secondary player in the game. I'll guess anybody analyzing the film will see they let similar "holds" go for 58 1/2 minutes. Instead of the Chiefs kicking the FG and seeing if the Eagles can drive down to tie or win the game the clock gets milked down to a few seconds for a chip shot field goal for a less than dramatic finish vs. the excitement and challenge the alternative ending would provide.

The problem is its hard to create what performers are driven to provide which is an over-the-top 10 minutes of "artistic creativity" rather than come out and just perform a couple of their familiar songs. At this point after so many past Super Bowl performances, none of it comes off as original or provocative. The costumes appeared cartoonish and the performance wasn't very inspiring. For Rihanna this performance was far from her best. And of course all the critics and commentators loved it because that's what they're obligated to say and their comments can't stray too far outside the lines of acceptable opinion.

I'm good with investigating and sending both Jerod and Hunter along with anyone implicated in any illegal dealings to trial & jail. But there are a lot of bad actors in government and media running interference for these guys. Lock them up too I say. Can we all agree with that approach?

Specific and individual risk assessment with the patient and their doctor wasn't something authorities cared about. Rather they were intent on imposing their one solution, which was insisting on the population getting vaccinated with a vaccine that doesn't produce immunity. Rather protection against severe illness and hospitalization. Two things you won't find as either primary or secondary endpoint goal of either the original Pfizer or Moderns trials. And rather than patient consent with an understanding of risks of either taking the shot or not, coercion was employed. And some wonder why many are skeptical and distrust the medical community and officials.

So these experts guarantee the risk of any long term impacts is zero?

If I recall correctly, in the first couple game against the Rams and Titans Josh took the short stuff, and it worked pretty well but as the season wore on that disappeared.

Their contention is "free speech" can be dangerous because it can be hurtful to some and disinformation to others. The social good vs. the rights of the individual dilemma. And therefore, some regulation and limits need to be applied. Of course that conclusion whether true or not, leaves out the discussion of the most important parts. Namely, how is what is allowed and not allowed decided, to whom is it harmful, how is it harmful, and most critical, who gets to decide what can and cannot be spoken, written, or displayed. Now if there was some social agreement defined from open and honest consideration of all points of views on what constitutes free and "allowable" speech that might be something most people across the social and political spectrum might be able to get behind. But when special interests or a specific political group with a specific political agenda, in secret, and without any transparency, get to decide for everyone, along with performing the act of censoring and censuring those that "speak" outside the acceptable boundaries that they create and operate in secret, that's another story. All while claiming its "fair" while consciously understanding they are lying. What it comes down to is the self-appointed censors decide to shut down people they don't like saying things they don't like. All their fancy talk and elaborate excuses can't hide that reality.

Of course she's lying! Because anyone who doesn't demonstrate 100% agreement, obedience, and support for all US government actions and policies while demonstrating 100% disagreement with anyone the government views as an enemy is a traitor. A misinformed traitor spreading disinformation and infecting the American collective with false narratives and debunked conspiracy theories. Most likely working for some foreign adversary or a supporter of "insurrectionists" or other "bad" actors. Putting Americans in danger and emboldening our adversaries (all the buzz words and terms from the playbook). While you legitimately act as a free citizen of the Republic with rights to dissent and expression your views such as those freedoms provided by the US Constitution the government and its supporters and allies such as those in the media view you as a subject of the government and the ruling elite. Do what you're told and shut up. This is the argument they will use against you if you speak out against or question anything. Its the only defense they can muster. Certain posters use it on this PPP board.

I'll concede there are exceptions but as a matter of practice they are also driven by science. In this case inconclusive science. But woke religion doesn't address ambiguous cases but rather people that reject their biological gender for a belief in something else. In these "I think I'm a women therefore I am" cases the gender is not ambiguous and the biological gender is clear yet people ignore reality. Just like those 10,000 year old Earth folks the left loves to snicker at. Its the same denial of reality at work.

I think anyone that prefers to apply logic, fact-based techniques of thinking, and things like the principles of physical science would conclude these people are rejecting reality in the face of evidence that renders their beliefs as false. Yet for some reason they might choose to cling to them. Why they would do that is something to explore. Faith is the answer I see most. This leads me to ponder the belief system of current social movements. I propose applying the same criteria to the American Woke movement, which after examination I conclude is a belief system that meets the criteria of a religion. Namely, dismissing scientific fact and logic. Start with the concept that they believe a man can be a women simply by believing. And attack anyone that disagrees. But genetic and biological facts invalidate their belief. Yet they cling to them. For me, that's consistent with a Christian cited in the example above believing the Earth is 10,000 years old when confronted with geological and scientific facts. So why do some that reject traditional or unique religious beliefs because they can be factually disproved believe in or fail to critique woke religious beliefs that can also be factually disproven?

The BS part is all these experts deluding themselves into believing they can control anything.

The social justice police request the use of proper pronouns or you'll end up living in a van down by the river!

Ask them why they still live at the beach and in urban areas along the coasts if they know and believe sea levels are rising?

When it comes to government spending being unsustainable, my favorite is "you want the truth", "you can't handle the truth". With the audience for the claim being the voters. I think it was Jung that said "people cannot stand too much reality". Fortunately for them, denying reality is the core competency and guiding principle of the current administration.

Why wasn't it 100%? CNN probably concluded making up a number of 72% by rigging the survey sample was about as high a number as might pass scrutiny.

To this point I haven't seen any study that has identified causality linking the vaccines to an increase in all-cause deaths. You'd have to design a study comparing a vaccinated population with a non-vaccinated control group, identify if any statistically significant differences exist in death rates between the two populations and then drill-down on those specific divergences. Organizations such as the CDC and NIH, along with most private companies such as Pfizer and University and Hospital researchers, have access to this kind of data. But given how invested most of these players are in the vaccine program, I expect nobody in the industry is eager to perform a study linking the vaccine to deaths which might suggest a personal or professional failure on their part that might also entail negative consequences. The fundamental issue isn't believing or not believing a link exists between excess deaths and the vaccines. Or the validity of conspiracy theories. The bottom line, and its a very valid conclusion, is that nobody running the show wants to find out.

Well, the author has impeccable credentials and decades of experience in investigating and exposing major stories. Correct or not we can expect, and right on queue the MSM propaganda machine will be carpet bombing the story with synchronized and consistently worded phases and terms to discredit it along with the writer in their usual fashion when defending this administration. Expect no tough questions to be directed to any administration or official. And they can't respond, because you know, national security and lives may be as risk. Nobody other than the author of the story will be grilled Obviously a Russian operative (ha ha). And the premise that Russia blew up their own pipeline to somehow "frame" some other party never made any sense. Frame them to what end? It was done for the same reason that Cortez burned his ships when reaching the new world centuries ago. To send a message there's no going back. Specifically with NordStream to Germany the most important nation state of Europe. What the US fears more than anything is Russian economic integration with western Europe. if you think the sideshow in Ukraine is about territorial integrity or stopping Russian conquest of Europe you're not paying close attention to how the world operates. its all about the money. But what blows that theory out of the water, no pun intended, is the existence of something people in the business call a shut off valve. I've heard its quite useful in turning off the flow of some liquid or gas running through a pipe. if you ever have a need to turn off the water or gas in your home its advisable to use the valve to stop the flow rather than blow up your water main or gas main hook up.

All Mighty God, if you're monitoring this message board please hit the "reset" button on the human race because your experiment has failed as some sort of social madness and insanity has overcome the world you have created which leaves the human race capable of only focusing on things of a trivial nature while things of importance are left to die and whither. or if this is some "Matrix" type existence simulation, please, erase the program and start over. Thank you.

Mention of Nixon brought back memories of a social and cultural parody of the times from this comedy and parody of the Watergate era by the late David Frye. It provides a good laugh for those familiar with it and might generate some thought on how liberalism has transformed from attacking and rejecting the establishment into today's embrace and support for it.

These viruses generally appear in large flocks of birds or herds of animals that are raised for human food production in unsanitary and crowded conditions. So the virus acquiring the ability to inflect people and then transmit it from person to person might just be nature's way of getting rid of the source of the problem.

"Evidence based explanations". Who can argue with that? But only approved evidence supporting the explanation (excluding anything that doesn't) from approved sources disseminated to the public through approved media outlets.