All_Pro_Bills

What's the odds Mika and Joe would perform an act of solidarity and utter those words in defense of their friend? I suspect an ice cubes chance in Hell.

I know the answer but it might offend some people.

No. Invoking Trump is the benchmark they use for the purpose of responding with a binary comparison to refute all arguments and avoid having to directly address anything you might post. The thinking goes something like Biden's administration sucks but Trump's sucked more or Hillary is corrupt but Trump is more corrupt. What we might call the cleanest pig in the mud hole approach. You might say Biden's attack killed 10 innocent women and children and the response is well Trump killed thousands (unverified of course) of innocent people. They also like to post lots of subjective opinions from like-minded individuals making unverifiable and fact-less claims which automatically transforms those opinions into facts. The strategy is to 1) Avoid having to discuss things you might bring up like Biden's numerous failures to date. In other words forcing them to defend the indefensible. 2) Deflect, associate in any way possible your views to Trump which by definition makes your views dangerous and more importantly automatically incorrect. 3) "Tag" you as a Trump "cult" member, and quite possibly a Putin sympathizer, which by definition invalidates your opinion and gets the conversation off the original topic. So you end up defending yourself not debating some position or view. 4) Positioning their view on all topics as the "victim" and the defender of justice and truth while yours is synonymous to the "Nazi oppressor" disregarding the fact that liberals control every major public and private institution which in reality makes them the establishment oppressor they claim victim status against. 5) After they read my post they will come back and say I do what I say they do! Or try to pull of a 1, 2, 3, or a 4 on me. See how they work?

The prize for the best insight in the fewest words. Lately, Joe Roagan's podcast has been the source of a lot of anxiety over the spread of COVID misinformation. But Rogan isn't spreading misinformation. He's just providing a forum for guests to provide their opinions and conclusions on his podcast utiizing a lengthy 3 hour format. Example, being Dr. Robert Malone. The creator/discoverer of mRNA technology. I'd say an unquestioned credentialed and experienced expert in the field. He basically said that mRNA vaccines produce spike proteins that can cause damage and harm to functions of the human body like proper functioning of the heart and the immune system. And these risks have not been properly disclosed to the public. And from a medical ethics perspective saying that all medical procedures and treatments have some level of risk, risk requires disclosure to the patient, and risk requires patient consent. And that none of that is happening. Is he right or wrong? I don't know. But I'm listening. But other people are not listening. They're calling for Rogan to be censored or labeled as a spreader of misinformation. But look at the people making these claims. Jen Psaki, Harry and Meghan, entertainers like Neil Young, and on and on. But they have absolutely no qualifications to make that judgment. Not a one of them are experts or experienced virologists, or mRNA and Gene Therapy researchers, or medical doctors, or proficient at molecular biology or some other discipline. If they're getting input from "experts" then identify your experts by name. They have no qualifications to make determinations about what is true or false. "Nothing is more dangerous than ignorance in action." They idiots. But idiots that make a lot of noise. In fact the truth is Rogan has expressed a willingness to anyone that disputes what Dr. Malone might say to counter his views point by point on his podcast. Maybe Harry and Meghan can share their insights about COVID misinformation by accepting an invite to the show and debate Malone on the merits and risks of mRNA vaccines since they seem to know everything. I'd love to hear that show! What I have not seen is uncensored and candid input from actual COVID experts disputing views like Malone's. People that might disagree with what some of Rogan's guests are saying and have the intellectual capacity and the expertise to make a coherent counter argument based on facts and science. We need to hear from them directly. Not through some institutional wall of secrecy. I doubt platforms that censor posters and users like Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Spotify have any such experts in their employ assessing conflicting views and making legitimate assessments. They just protect the official sources of bullsheet and as those narratives change adjust to it (just like Buffalo Timmy pointed out). I'm optimistic that ultimately the truth will win out. If it didn't we'd all still be forced to believe the Earth is flat like Neil Young does.

That's too logical. You need to stop. If that would happen then the potential for peace to break out everywhere might usher in a new era of human cooperation. And how would all those defense contractors supported by 800+ billion in annual US government spending along with 100's of billions more from elsewhere survive? Where would former officials in the State and Defense departments and the Pentagon find work in the private sector. What's next? Diverting all those funds to solving problems of poverty, hunger, and research and development into sources of unlimited energy? No, it's way more productive to live though an era of constant warfare and conflict. Suggesting peace and prosperity rather than death and war might lead others to accuse us of being Putin sympathizers. It's much better for our country to pursue a policy of acting like a 50 ton truck with no road manners.

Where can I apply? If required I can certainly ignore holding and pass interference calls as well as anyone.

Should we assume as leader of one NATO member he has authority to dictate policy to all other NATO members. Or has already consulted them with this brilliant idea? Along with unilaterally granting territorial access to a Russian leader these other nations consider an adversary and threat? And the Poles and Romanians have agree too? If this is factual I can hear Peppermint Patty walking this back at the next WH PR. Something like "We believe, and the President believes, blah, blah, blah".

If we're really lucky it might escalate to an all-out nuclear exchange. And all the war enthusiasts can say well we won that one!

This morning those guys from the Lincoln Project that showed up for a fake right wing photo op in Washington DC in early January with torches, matching hats, jackets, and khakis were spotting marching in formation over the Peace Bridge and headed to Ft. Erie. This time they made sure it was just all white guys for the sake of appearing authentic.

As they're experts at manufacturing and creating cases of entrapment, Biden is sending up some of our FBI guys to help pull that together.

There's no limits to the narratives these sociopaths try to spin. Now the little dictator-in-hiding is using the social justice nuclear option. Invoking identity politics and accusing powerless individual Canadian truck drivers collectively fighting for their rights of immoral and unethical behavior and thoughts. All while imposing authoritarian measures on helpless citizens using the full force of government. So who's immoral and unethical?

Historical authority is the source of disinformation. It's no different here with government putting out more COVID misinformation than anyone else. Yesterday's disinformation is now today's fact. 6 months ago cloth masks don't work. Disinformation banned. Today from the CDC, cloth masks don't work. COVID fact. The vaccine will not protect you from infection. 4 months ago banned misinformation. Now COVID fact. If you're vaccinated you can't spread the virus. Wrong. It will keep you out of the hospital. Wrong. Nobody is being maliciously deceptive. Qualified and creditable experts have differences of opinion and views based on interpretations of science and data. And real life experience treating patients. That is normal discourse. That's part of the scientific process. Like the guy that holds almost all the patents on mRNA technology voicing concerns about the vaccines. Who is more qualified to speak than he is on the topic? Bill Gates? Dorsey? That's a joke! These ass wipe social media platforms owners and their censors don't know dog sheet from the truth. I could go on but I think everybody gets the point.

I'm gonna talk about ethics. Most corrupt? Maybe based on your delusional version of reality or the media propaganda you consume or perhaps your dreams at night but I'll wait for your factual count of the number of officials from the previous administration that have there been convicted of corruption to be sure. Otherwise, stop making up bullsheet. Now for some humor. https://babylonbee.com/news/harvard-hires-lisa-page

No, but I work for one of the larger one's.

That's exactly what I'm asking (bold above). And thank you for responding with a lot of insights. And sorting out the "liberal" label. So I guess I'm a "classical liberal" or perhaps used to be one? For reference my upbringing was in a Hubert Humphrey type household. My family was heavily involved in the labor and civil right movement and associating with members of those causes shaped a lot of my views. And when's the last time any leader from the labor movement was invited to the White House for a sit down? A party that claims to fight for the working person that ignores and abandons those workers while embracing all types of victims. And yes, I can't characterize anyone fighting for or advocating for the establishment, either the big government stepping all over the little guy or big powerful corporations as any kind of liberal. To me that speaks of authoritarianism. And ironically these are the same people shouting about dangers to democracy while ignoring their own inclinations and the dangers their views present. They seem to support and crave mandates, censorship, things like that. I also don't view this establishment, or deep state, or whatever we'd like to call it, as a left vs. right, liberal vs conservative thing. I see at as a basic operating system running in the background no matter which party is in power. I didn't vote for Trump in either 2016 or 2020 no matter what some posters here might think. I didn't have any strong opposition to Bernie Sanders and was dismayed the party sabotaged his campaign twice by throwing their weight behind Hillary and dragging in Biden in 2020 to provide some image of a moderate to the voters. The Democratic candidate that resonated best to me was Tulsi Gabbard but I knew she would never win the primary fight because of her anti-war stance. An agent of Putin, right? Because she doesn't want to see Americans fight and die for unworthy causes. War which fatten their wallets and enhance their power. My guess is that if Bernie or Tulsi happened to win the general election these establishment powers would have given them the same treatment they gave Trump. I don't understand how people identifying with being "progressive" can advocate for a constant state of warfare. And true, neocon elements do the same thing. So as far as that goes I put them into the same category and consider them both a danger to peace and cooperation. I'm not a fan of Trump as a person and don't support most of his positions but that doesn't mean I don't support some of them. And in many cases what I view as the extreme alternatives presented by progressives make Trump often outrageous positions appear to be moderate views. I thought his tax reform was a corporate giveaway and a big mistake along with being a slap in the face for anyone thinking he was a genuine populist. He's not. But I also don't like the Democrats singular focus on identity politics. I think that message has worn out its welcome. I don't like woke or social justice ideologies either. I view those people as mental and emotional weaklings. I don't understand how the current woke military leadership thinks they can purge "political extremists" from the ranks and fill the services out with woke soldiers and win a war with them doing the fighting. They just don't have the make up for it all. I could go on for another couple thousand words but I'll stop. And I feel that I didn't abandon the Democratic party by adopting more centrist views (extremist views according to the current administration). They abandoned me.

Big government and big media pushing the narrative that powerless individual citizens coming together to demand their legal freedoms under their democratic system stolen by an oppressive authoritarian central government are "insurrectionists".

From what I understand a conservative position in Canada might be characterized by the proposal to force quarantine citizens for 9 days instead of the 10 days the liberal government imposes. So don't expect many voices on the Right to speak up in support of the convoy.

Peter Strzok is a corrupt former FBI agent and Clinton operative that was banging FBI lawyer Lisa Page on the side. If you're going to play the ethics card then find a better source.

On the way to Ottawa exiting the expressway to stop at several Tim Horton's for donuts along the way! And as we speak, Canadian authoritarian government advocates and supporters masquerading as liberal zealots are prepared to form a human shield around their glorious leader PM Trudeau in order to protect the liberal imposter from the working class people that are upset with the government. What they haven't quite figured out yet is how to form a human shield while complying to the 2 meter social distancing mandate. But they vow not to break the law like the worker insurrectionists threatening Canadian "democracy". I'm finding the best way to address the faux liberal mentality is not to debate them but to mock and laugh at them. And its fun too!

If you're a Bills fan that 13 second sequence totally pissed you off. I'm over it and then I'm not. I think we all feel anger and frustration even a week later but I'm not quite at the point of firing anyone just yet. It hurts most because this team was so close to the end of the journey and the ultimate goal. And the reality it was in their hands and just slipped away in some inconceivable fashion is close to impossible to accept. While us fans are never going to get a clear explanation here beyond McDermott's "execution" statement if I'm in charge of the team, ownership and general manager, I want just such an honest and truthful explanation from the coaches. I would need to understand from the coaches what they expected to happen during the end of the game by aligning the defense and strategizing the last 13 seconds? Because the approach employed doesn't have many supporter among football people either before, during, or after it failed. The consensus is the scheme at the end of the game was a flawed approach that to a person none of them would ever employ under those circumstances. But that's exactly what they did. And if I'm running the team I want to better understand your thought process and whether or not there's potential for you doing it again. I need to be confident that some "limited" or "flawed" thinking in the minds of the coaches is not going to show up again in a big spot. And get in the way of achieving our ultimate goal of a championship when another critical in game decision or two determines if we succeed or fail. And given how competitive it is in most of these games such decisions and situations are almost guaranteed to happen. I expect these conversations inside the building have already taken place and I trust Beane will do the right thing in pursuit of a championship. In the end all of his achievements will be judged on whether or not this version of the Bills reached that goal. As for KC yesterday, I could ask the same question of Reid and Mahomes and Bienemy as I've got for McDermott and Frazier. They saw the adjustments the Bengals made at halftime and continued to try to force their original strategy. They failed to adjust when it was required. Why didn't they? But also kudos to the Bengals for winning the strategy and adjustment chess match.

That's what the mobsters in the movies say right before they shoot somebody. Or a woman might say breaking up with someone. "Nothing personal, but I just can't stand the sight of you". Or in the case of the thread title, "Nothing personal, but you've got to be the worst President ever".

The Babylon Bee reports: "When workers of the world unite against overbearing government mandates, that's literal fascism," said a sobbing socialist Prime Minister Justin Trudeau from deep within his top-secret bunker underneath Washington, D.C. "True, compassionate socialism is when the government partners with private corporations to force experimental drugs on the populace and threaten their very livelihoods if they don't. Everyone knows that." According to sources, socialists were initially thrilled by the trucker convoy, as they had mistaken it for a bread line. To their dismay, they soon found out that it was a toxic freedom march organized by the working class against the Canadian bourgeois. "As compassionate leaders, we must send heavily armed military and police personnel to stop these united working-class people before they take over and spread their freedom-loving fascism everywhere. It's the moral thing to do," said Trudeau. Reports say Trudeau is weighing his options to quell the protest, including calling them Nazis, hitting them with drone strikes, or releasing a herd of angry moose into the crowd. They're right. Its satire but it hits the nail on the head about pseudo-socialist posers and fakers. But I expect the left leaning and socialist type poster here will sympathize with the Canadian government. Maybe they should do some self-inspection of their views and conclude they're not socialists but really are fascists? Authoritarian government supporters of the world unite!

You seem to be suffering from the same affliction as me. Which is an ability to view events and situations objectively. And to understand the world is not right vs. wrong, or good vs. evil. What matters is perspective. Everything is relative not absolute. When negotiating with another party, working to produce an agreement, there are a couple critical things. Primarily, there needs to be a genuine desire to reach a negotiated settlement between the parties. Another is understanding what you want out of the negotiation. Maybe more critical is understanding what your counterpart wants out of the negotiation. And then, objectively and rationally assessing both positions and defining what you think both parties would agree to and what you'd be willing to concede and what you view as vital interests on which you won't yield. While going through the same thought process regarding your counterpart. Wha does Russia want here? Simply guarantees the U.S. and/or NATO will not park troops and strategic or tactical weapons right across their border in Ukraine. Plain and simple. If the U.S. conceded that point all potential hostilities would immediately come to an end. But at present the U.S. is unwilling to concede that point. You need to understand it is vital to Russia's interests to not have those weapons parked right across their border. The question from our perspective is what is our vital national interest in having those weapons systems hosted there? If you say to keep Ukraine from being invaded I'd suggest it is the very potential to host those weapons that puts them in harms way. And in your hypothetical Vancouver example with roles reversed the U.S. would also be insistent on the same terms and conditions as Russia is regarding Ukraine. And the same people shouting bloody murder over some potential for Russia to invade Ukraine to stop the deployment of NATO weapons there would be 100% insistent the U.S. consider all options to protect our country including the threat of invading Vancouver. Sadly, many people just can't think objectively. Whether its emotional or intellectual immaturity or a lack of life experience I am not certain.

Throwing Bass under the bus still doesn't explain sending out your defense in an alignment that allowed Mahomes to play 20 yard pitch-and-catch with Hill and Kelce on two consecutive plays in the middle of the field while you had the defense way too far off the LOS while also guarding the sidelines when the Chiefs had 3 timeouts in their pocket. Starting at the 25 they still needed 40 yards give or take and McDermott/Frazier were so afraid of the big play they forgot about stopping two consecutive smaller chunk plays. To boot they called a time out before each of those plays and still didn't adjust anything. So if they missed communicating on the kick off that was probably the least of the mistakes they committed in those 3 plays. That's a situation that an NFL defense should never mess up. Never. Its unforgivable. Especially in a playoff game, a 3 point lead, 13 seconds left, the opponent needing 40+ yards to attempt a game tying FG before time expires. It's a 1 in a million shot to lose there and the Bills hit it.