All_Pro_Bills

The electoral college was established as a condition for smaller population states to ratify the Constitution. The concern was a few large population states would control the Federal government and dictate policy to the rest of the nation. That is no less of a concern today than it was in 1789. Hence the equal representation in the Senate and the proportional allotment of House members for the States.

Forgive my ignorance but I don't know a thing about Merrick or who that is. But they can have all the power they want as long as they stay out of my wallet and don't tell me what I can and cannot do or say or think or how I chose to live. Truth is the "majority" that foots the bill for all things agrees with my view of things.

In our Republic form of government checks and balances were put in place to deter the "majority" from running roughshod over the Constitutional and legal rights of any minority opinion or viewpoint. The fact progressives claiming to represent some majority view don't like it means it seems to be working well.

I like you enthusiasm but if everyone is entitled to $1K per week and they get free healthcare and free college then who will choose to work and produce the goods and services all this free money is going to get spent on? The $1k translates to $25/hr. So it seems reasonable to assume that anyone making less than that will quit their job.

Political pandering at its finest. I'm sure Joe and his followers are up all night weeping and morning his loss.

With or without Brady, the Patriots still stand in the Bills way to a division title. So I view this as a big game and a critical point in their journey back to being respectable. Go 6-2 at the halfway point and drop your biggest competition to 2-5. Anything short of a win is failure to take control of the division and put some hurt on the logo that's been beating you like a drum for almost 2 decades. Let's not make excuses or minimize the importance of this game. It time to man-up and play lights out football on Sunday. Nothing short of maximum effort and focus and preparedness is going to cut it. Time to slay the beast! Or punch the bully in the face! However it can be described. Get it done right here and right now on Sunday.

I recall this too and I have a big complaint about it! For 15 years I had to watch the Bills play Brady twice a year while he worked over and barked at the officials when he didn't get a call multiple times times during the games and not one single time did he ever draw a flag for unsportsmanlike conduct for abuse of an official. Allen gets horse-collared from behind (they said in the pocket is not a penalty), voices his dissatisfaction with the official over a non-call and gets flagged 15 for bringing it to his attention. I don't want to hear you got to earn those calls, abuse is abuse. The truth is the officials are too afraid to flag the GOAT and do their job.

There's always an excuse. Maybe the issue is the local and state health agencies should not be setting people with mental issues problems loose in the communities they serve? So the cops shoot knife wielding guy that comes at them. Queue the automatic conclusion the police acted improperly along with the standard looting and rioting. And then the likely blow back. My guess is this will impact enough voters that Pennsylvania will likely fall into the Trump win column next week. Well played BLM idiots, well played. Maybe they can start some riots in Michigan later this week?

If Poe can just maintain his position and tie up his man at the LOS while not getting pushed back 5 yards on every down then he'd be an improvement over the DT group's performance to date.

I have no opinion one way or the other on Ms. Harris but the contradiction here is that society has evolved to the point where women are to be treated equally but when somebody goes after them out comes the gender card and accusations against their adversary of bias or some character flaw. No more free passes for the ladies.

Having the benefit of knowing history makes that an easy conclusion. But pursuing a pre-emptive approach in the context of the time which was a world weary of war and the onset of the Great Depression and a U.S. not yet the Super Power it would become (and perhaps incapable at the time of pulling off such an action) would have been viewed much differently without the benefit of hindsight.

When I saw the title of this topic I wondered "how does this guy know my sister-in-law"?

The thing is and its the root of the matter in my view. its a long highway between a minority of Americans being "friendly" to suggesting that Americans or America itself supported systematic genocide of racial, ethic, and national groups, political opponents, mentally and physically disabled people, homosexuals, gypsies, and others the regime decided to exterminate. Anyone that believes that or pushes that narrative is full of crap. Would you agree with this statement?

Yes, climate change has been politicized and as such its an issue used by politicians to either gain support or opposition to specific issues. My assessment is that climate change is happening. Its always been happening on the planet. The planet is a dynamic system. It is always changing. There are periods when the average temperature rises and periods when it falls. Both occurring when humans existing and when they did not exist. And CO2 levels does not explain all those variations. The core questions here are: 1) Do CO2 emissions and the concentration of the gas in the atmosphere impact the direction and magnitude of the change? 2) Is this the only factor causing the climate to "change" or are there other variables? My contention is the climate change crowd endorses the first but ignores the second. My questions to the "science" crowd would be: 1) What's the perfect temperature and conditions you are looking for? 2) What if we cut CO2 concentrations and nothing happens? 3) Do you believe we as the human race have the ability to determine what the climate of the Earth should be? 4) What about things you can't control? Like geological activity such as earthquakes and volcanoes? Variations in the Sun's energy output. Periodic perturbations in the Earth's orbit and tilt.

"Today, Joe Biden thought he was running against George Bush... for real".

I hate to call this a "statement" game but that's what I think it is next Sunday. The Bills look to be the superior team although they haven't played up to their potential for the past 3 weeks. Chalk it up to a lot of issues, interruptions in the schedule, injuries, and such. Maybe the defense pulled out of their funk in the second half yesterday? And the offense needs to finish drives with TD's and not shoot themselves in the foot with penalties, some questionable play calls, and poor execution. But this is a game they should win against the Patriots. We know what NE is likely to do here. On offense focus on a running game with Newton and the RB's mixing in some short passing while running some clock. And on defense bringing pressure, a spy on Allen, and scheming to take away the over the top passes while making Josh take short and check down throws. The big thing is absolutely none of this should be a surprise or a secret. Much of it they've done for years against the Bills with great success. But this time the team has much more talent on offense than in the past. So there is absolutely no excuse for the coaching staff on both sides of the ball to not have a decent game plan ready to counter these strategies and the team ready to execute it.

Wow! A stop on 4th and 1. From what I've seen so far didn't see that coming. Now let's get 7..

I'm not sure what your point is other than to demonstrate you're more informed on the subject or smarter than me. That's okay, I don't claim expert status on the subject. My point was that NAZI Germany was a socialist society in form and function where the regime centralized total power and control and all decision making. Where citizens existed to serve the state. And it was a brutal dictatorial police state . Along with trying to dispel the myth held by a lot of people on the left that socialist regimes are democratic in nature. In practice they are not.

After reading through and commenting on the topic here I'm still not sure what the OP is getting at here? Is there an insinuation that America supports Nazi's? What's missing from the statement America was friendly with Hitler is context. For one its not possible to view and evaluate the events of the 1930's pre-WW2 era through the context of 2020. The world was in a worldwide depression. Germany had just been defeated in WW1 and humiliated and economically crippled by the terms of the Versailles treaty. The conditions for socialist/communist sympathies were present (and once again the NAZI's were the National Socialist German Workers Party. The dictator part came later in 1932). And what does it mean to be "friendly"? And what does "America" mean? A government policy, private citizens, or private organizations? Once you answer these types of clarifying questions you can conclude that specific individuals and organizations (some of them German-American organizations) might have been "friendly" to the Reich but there was never any official US policy of support for the Nazi's or Hitler's regime. And archives of official German records of the time clearly show Hitler had no love or friendship for America. And prior to America entering WW2 there as a clear policy of supporting the allies, specifically the UK. Anyone suggesting the U.S. had some official policy of friendship or cooperation with Nazi Germany over and above normal diplomatic relations is wrong. U.S. pre-war policy was clearly skewed towards the U.K. and never rendered any direct or intentional aid to the Nazi regime.

I think this is a great idea. The government should give each and every one of us $100,000 a year so none of us has to work or be wanting for anything.

No America was not a proponent of the NAZI's. The allegation, even if true, that private individuals, organizations, and business provided support to the NAZI's pre-war does not by definition conclude that America, its government, and citizens supported the NAZI's. Those group represented their own interests. The U.S. clearly supported the Allies, Brittan. France, and other occupied countries before entering the war. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the U.S. A fact is that America was the only country Germany offically declared war on during WW2.

Yes, Volkswagon. Watch the series" Hilter's Empire: The Post-War Plan". It makes what the Reich was all about very clear. State control over every aspect of the lives of every citizen. A belief the citizen exists to serve the state. No freedom of choice or self determination. That's a socialist's wet dream. And still there are people that insist the NAZI's were not socialists even in the face of a clear historical record. Because they were brutal thugs and psychotic murderers? News flash. So are ALL socialist regimes. Deniers are either in denial of history or ignorant of history or simply refuse to accept the truth. Preferring to live in the fantasy that has been created for them to believe in. That fantasy being socialism is "good".

NAZI stands for National Socialist (German) Workers Party. So yes, Hitler came to power under a socialist party platform and agenda. Beware socialists bearing gifts. A Trojan Horse. Don't be fooled by a something for nothing proposition. The thing people always end up surrendering is their freedom. This you can 100% count on.

My smell test of whether a country is free or not is how they control their national borders. A free society maintains a border patrol/enforcement organization to keep people from entering illegally (or if you prefer, undocumented). Socialist/Communist countries maintain border patrols to keep people from leaving. Generally by force up and including lethal force. It one of the biggest tools of state control available to them designed to enslave the most productive members of society in order to keep the elites and their armies of social enforcers living well. If all the productive people leave the whole thing goes to Hell. My message to wanna-be American Socialist is that I have no issue with them being Socialists. In fact there's nothing stopping them from doing it now. Just get a business or some enterprise together and apply the socialist principals, whatever they might be, in running the organization. See if it works. But please don't try to force me to go along with your plan. I kind of get the idea that you all expect people like me, people that have jobs and a paycheck, are going to foot the bill for all your "great" ideas. You want to play, then you need to pay. Best of luck.

There's a lot of support for protecting the environment. What's missing from the discussion is what are the "costs" in terms of funding outlays and costs and potential changes in living arrangements and standards. Clean energy plans are almost exclusively linked to converting petroleum based energy consumption to electricity. But it needs to be noted that electricity is not an energy source. Its an energy carrier. The source is the system or process that creates or generates it. If you do the math against the BTU or energy output potential of oil, gasoline, and natural gas and equate that to the amount of "Green Energy" electrical generation capacity needed to equal our current consumption you'll find the green footprint on the economy and landscape is many times larger than what is being discussed. For the electrical grid the goal is to produce constant and uninterruptible base load output without variance. No pure solar/wind generation setup is going to be able to do that. You'll need batteries for a start to design for drops and dips in wind and sunlight. Plus adding capacity for seasonal differences in weather and the Earth's tilt to the Sun. The ironic thing is factories that produce wind turbines and solar cells & collectors and batteries use a lot of oil. Or can you run a solar and wind and battery manufacturing facility on green energy without things like plastics and other materials derived from hydrocarbons? These are just some details I don't see any discussion about. It leads me to conclude talk about total elimination of the use of oil and the oil industry is pure fantasy unless your want to cut the living standard of every person back to an 1800's level. Mostly driven by a false belief that "technology" can solve every problem we'll every encounter.