All_Pro_Bills

He came back to the sidelines for that 10 yr. $100 deal!

Who wants to drive over a bridge engineered and built by people that think math is racist so 2+2=5? These people are suffering from some group delusion or mental illness. It's all BS that will suddenly disappear if Biden wins next month.

My views align with much of what you say. My basic premise of human behavior is everyone acts out of their own self-interest. So politicians, activists, do-gooders, and others aren't acting out of duty to serve the people, or helping those in need, or ending injustices. They are acting to enhance their own power, or wealth,, or status, or some other benefits. If what agenda they're pushing gets them there its not important what consequences or problems they cause for others. I view all these social movements, political causes, and other "end world hunger" type people as con artists. Professional liars. The people I admire and value are those that have their own convictions and mind their own business. The other thing about what you believe is how much credibility you assign to the messenger. And how much first-hand, expert, or other types of knowledge and experience you might have about the subject. My advice, be skeptical but open-minded, think critically, ask questions, get other views, identify the motivation of others, always be wary of people that are certain they are correct (including me!)

When Trump is suddenly "cured" Michael Moore will charge he was provided the Russian vaccine by his good buddy Putin.

China has already bought off most of the big U.S. tech firms so will they be held accountable? No. If you post on Twitter or Facebook or other social media platforms that the virus was bio-engineered in the Wuhan lab and intentionally released to the rest of the world your account will be disabled and the tweet removed. Removed by "fact checkers", who have correct and accurate firsthand knowledge of the lab's operations, procedures, and activities along with direct access to CCP strategic decision makers. I jest here because they know absolutely nothing firsthand. So how can the check facts without facts? They've even censored postings and papers from Chinese scientists with direct knowledge of the lab and the governments bio-weapons programs some of which have disappeared or died from the virus. Many scientists have concluded its impossible for any natural mutation of coronavirus to acquire HIV and "splice" itself into the host virus. This can only be produced in a laboratory setting. The fingerprints of human intervention are all over the genetic code and structure of the virus. Anyone that talks about this openly is immediately dismissed by the lapdog media as spreading conspiracies. But truth, which matters not, is these fact checkers and media mouthpieces don't know squat about anything. All that matters is protecting the narrative of their sponsors and funders. Fact checking logic is as follows. <Your view> NE <official narrative> = <incorrect/fake>. Result = censorship. We're entering an era where the truth is the biggest threat to control and censorship is the major weapon to suppressing any free speech, critical thinking and expression of views conflicting with the official view.

That's a good question and I don't know of any definitive answer from any researchers or virologists. My best guess based on other corona-viruses and similar viruses like the common cold is that "natural" immunity will be for a limited time. Like if you get a cold and give it to everybody in the house. You won't get it again right away but let 4 or 5 months pass and you might. Whether a vaccine is going to be a lifetime immunization isn't clear either. My guess it becomes a seasonal shot like the flu.

I wouldn't say they are stupid but rather they are crafty. They introduce false comparisons, like deflecting the conversation, by asking if the suspect was black instead of white for example, in order to avoid answering a direct question or providing an answer that is obvious but runs contrary to their stated position. In this way they make it seem like you are the one that has inconsistent positions rather than the opposite which is they are the one's with inconsistency issues. But the answer most of us would provide is it doesn't matter if he was Black or White or Asian or Hispanic or a member of any other racial group. If he acted in self-defense and the facts support that contention that's the only think that matters.

When woke politicians and out-of-town political & social activists push to remove police from neighborhoods people figure out real fast they're going to be left to defend themselves.

Draft "experts" are not talent evaluators. They are accumulators of statistics and information. They looked at Allen's stats and the program he played in and made their conclusions.

Further its unclear as to the number of organizations and their membership headcount that constitute the population of extremist groups and members. And the division between what is categorized as groups threatening the interests of government or threatening people of other races. The term "White Supremacist" gets thrown around gratuitously and appears to refer to both. While I cannot find any credible source that breaks the numbers down into these two categories it seems important to understand how many are politically motivated and how many are racially motivated. Of the groups mentioned in this topic, Proud Boys, Antifa, and BLM I'd say Proud Boys and Antifa are politically motivated and BLM is racially motivated as they hate white people (although they've cleaned up their website to remove much of the offensive doctrine).

They look pretty dangerous. Especially the guy in the orange shirt carrying a soda in his right hand. That could be some kind of weapon. They appear to be the clear number one national security risk to the safety and security of our nation. Meanwhile, in an alternative Universe Antifa is setting fires, destroying property, and attacking and beating other citizens without much notice.

Let's give Gabe Davis his proper due here. I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this here yet. He refused to let the defender steer him out of his route. Most rookies aren't aware or experienced enough to do that in game 3 of their pro career. More than anything he drew the foul like a Guard driving the lane in basketball drawing the blocking foul. And even with the illegal contact/PI he was able to run his route and if Allen had a split second more time he possibly could have been in position to make the catch. One more thing... As a Bills fan that's seen his team get screwed consistently over the last 20 years with bad calls at the worst possible time I will not apologize or entertain any opinions that the call was wrong or feel bad for the opponent or their fans. After all the Rams made it to the SB on the most blatant defensive PI non-call ever. On to the Raiders!

Lamar Jackson is an exception talent and played to a level deserving of his MVP status last season. And Roman's offense is well suited to his current skill set but does anyone see the strategy of the Ravens providing him any opportunities to develop his game to the next step? Lamar has some critical weaknesses in his game. Weaknesses that need to be developed or eliminated (if that's possible) to stop defenses from game planning against them and enable him to become more of a complete QB. The kind of QB that can be effective in whatever circumstances are present. Compare this to the way the Bills have developed Allen and the improvement in his game over time. The Bills didn't simply customize an offense around his strengths and accept his weaknesses and just go with it. That to me seems what the Ravens are doing with Jackson. If the intent of the Ravens is to win 10 plus games every season and lose in the playoffs when they encounter a 'complete' team and QB then they are well positioned for the next several seasons. If they want to win it all they need to develop Jackson into a more complete QB and if that isn't possible start looking at 'Plan B'.

Absolutely. But was it even a bad call? This is what Fox Rules Analyst Mike Pereira said "Well I'll tell you, on a day were seemingly I've disagreed with everything that's been called, at least in replay, I agree with this. Because to me its illegal contact, he rides him more than 5 yards downfield with the QB in the pocket, and then when the balls in the air that illegal contact becomes defensive PI. So its tough, its huge but watch here gonna ride, ride, ride, he's beyond 5 yards, and then the receiver turns inside but the fouls already been committed. So I actually do like the call."

And I loved her so much as Phoebe in Charmed. But she grew up to be such a disappointment!

The Bills defense plays their system well generally with a lot of discipline but will struggle against good/great offenses. They have a great safety tandem on the back end and Tre White at one corner. But this defense is not elite. If you were building a defense of players 5-deep at all 11 positions, outside of Poyer, Hyde, and White who would you select from this group? I would hesitate to say anyone else on this defense is a top 5 player at their position. Maybe Milano but who else would you say is in the top 5 in the league at their position?

My revolt and laughable contempt for her action is not her objection to the existence of the police or her support of de-funding the police. My objection is the obvious lack of conviction of her and others that support the de-funding idea. They rally around the mantra of de-funding but when trouble comes to them personally they immediately drop their objections to the existence and the need for police. It all disappears into the hypocrites slogan of "police for me but not for thee".

Pure comedy. I can't wait to hear her "rationalization" between her desire to defund the cops and her need for their assistance. Recognizing her as an advocate of defuding the 911 operator should have told her to call Ghostbusters.

When I saw the OP's comment I thought of a business book that I read many years ago. It was written by a person that built a sports agent company. His observations about the mindset of a champion reminded me of Allen (and other high performers). I found it on my bookshelf and here's some insights from the writer Mark McCormack. "The true champions, the legends, the upper one percent who consistently dominate their opponents perform at a high level at the most crucial times. Skills and a supreme confidence are part of it but they are not the determining factors. Most players when they reach the professional level are already blessed with an abundance of both. The true champions edge exists solely in the mind. I have observed three traits in every superstar I have known. 1. The champions profound sense of dissatisfaction with their own accomplishments. They use any success or victory as a spur to greater ambition. Any goal reached becomes the next step towards a greater more 'unreachable' one. 2. The ability to peak their performance, to get themselves up for major events or contests. 3. Their ability to put away their opponents. This is the 'killer instinct; but this tells more about the result than what goes on mentally. In the champions mind he is never ahead. He is always coming from behind even when the score indicates he is destroying the opponent. He never believes he is performing as well as he actually is." I think this all describes Josh Allen's mentality pretty well. I'll add one of my own to the list for Josh. The ability to motivate and command his team to adopt and use the same mindset on Sunday. You can see his personality become the team's personality over the course of his time as QB.

The PI on 4th down was questionable but the INT was absolutely the incorrect call and the unsportsmanlike on Allen was weak. But all you'll hear all week is the "bad" PI call. It all evened out.

Rarely do I watch these debates but this will be an exception. Short of wandering around the stage and pissing his pants the MSM is surely going to give Joe the win. If post debate polls show Trump closing or ahead prepare for epic liberal temper tantrums. Get your popcorn ready!

This is a typical Trump move to set the expectations. Like a coach implying the refs are going to favor their opponent on Sunday because they always get all the calls. So now the officials are going to be on their toes to "prove" they are being unbiased. And if he is judged to be the "loser" well then the moderator wasn't fair as previously suggested. And if not his great abilities and the record of his administration won the day.

Go examine the poll methodologies, statistical populations, and insights from the poll takers that are publicly available.

Listening to the show hosts and fans calling in on WFAN in NYC most of the Jets faithful are already on suicide watch.

The 2016 polls over-sampled registered Democrats and did not statistically represent the population they were trying to estimate from a sample. From what I've seen they are doing it again in 2020 with the added wrinkle of about 10% of registered voters in the polls refusing to provide the pollsters their choice. Most are would-be Trump voters fearing being outed by the poll takers or other's that don't believe their answers will be kept private or anonymous. So the margin of error is likely much greater than they advertise. Which way it swings who knows for sure..