All_Pro_Bills

I like where you're going with this. Most of it sounds reasonable. I don't mess with you and you don't mess with me. I don't try to impose my moral and social beliefs on you and you don't try to do it to me. I don't force you into arrangements and transactions and situations against your will and you don't try to do that to me. I respect your freedoms and you respect mine. I make my life choices and you make yours. Lastly we agree that anything that gives "The State" more control and power over the individual should be opposed. A fundamental problem is there are people out there that think they're intellectually, morally, and ethically superior to everyone that disagrees with them. They think there is something fundamentally wrong with the people that don't believe what they believe. That they suffer from some character flaw or behavioral issue. That they somehow need to be "reprogrammed" or "educated" to act and think and speak in a manner consistent with their belief system. They see the world through their eyes and refuse to accept the idea that anyone could have another perspective on things outside of their own view. There are intellectual bigots on both sides of the left/right divide and they are a problem. I'm not advocating taking action against them in any way. Just that we all need to realize they are the cause of strife and conflict and they need to be ignored and that handing any power to them is dangerous. As somebody that likes to mind his own business and take ownership and responsibility for my own life while respecting the rights of others to do the same I have absolutely no use or need for any of these extremists. I don't need or want a leader to think or decide for me what is best for me.

I have a little more confidence in the Bills chances against the Ravens than many here. I think they just need to go out and execute their game plan on offense and let the Ravens defense worry about how to defend it. And on defense they had a decent strategy last time they played, losing 24-17 mainly because the Bills offense was ineffective. That has changed since. I was watching ESPN First Take and they were talking about the Bills/Ravens and Stephan A. Smith didn't give the Bills much of a chance against the Ravens. Citing their defensive stats and Jackson's ability in Roman's system. And citing their surge down the stretch. But who did they beat? They had one quality win against the Browns plus wins against the Cowboys, Jaguars, Giants, and Bengals. Hardly a "murderers row" of good opponents. Plus on Saturday a game against a Titans team that just looked flat after the 1st quarter. If the Bills bring the house here I can see them coming out on top.

The problem is who gets to decide what is acceptable and not acceptable? I never liked Trump much and can't condone or support much of what Trump has done or said but I could site a multitude of examples of tweets and statements and sites on social media that extort and condone violence but they are not censored, flagged, or taken down, or de-platformed. Why is some violence and resistance okay but not others? It boils down to who gets to decide and what criteria they use to decide. At this point these actions are being used as a weapon against people or organizations that are identified as political enemies of those controlling these platforms and forums. Its not about good and evil. That's what dictators do. The objective is to control the conversation and the narrative rather than suppress and remove violent statements and ideas. That should be obvious. You don't need to be a genius to figure that out. So what happens when ideas you might support or approve of or express get censored because some tech oligarch or political hack on the left or the right decide your thoughts are evil? Are you good with that? I don't agree with a lot of what people say on either side of the political spectrum but I'm also not going around trying to stuff a rag in their mouth to stop them from speaking. And I don't support this clear and obvious movement of criminalizing political descent. That's what this is all about. Is isn't about good and evil and stopping violence. I call BS on that. We all know that's what it is. So can we please stop all the phony moral outrage?

I'd add doing a poor job of managing their 2nd half timeouts to the Colts shortcomings. They burned a timeout early in the 3rd quarter when the play clock ran to zero. They seemed to be playing to that clock management strategy all day. A 2nd timeout was spent challenging a fumble when it was obvious, on the play Moss was hurt, that he was down before the ball was loose. That left them with 1 timeout down near the end of the game when time outs would have helped get them into FG range to tie the game and go to overtime.

For one, Heyward was a disruptive force in the 1st half pushing the pocket, getting pressure, and clogging up the interior. The Bills seemed to make some blocking adjustments in the 2nd half and he was not as much of a fact as a result. Josh was also getting the ball out a little quicker and reading the "D" more effectively.

I've always concluded the Bills lost SB25 because they failed to make any major adjustments to their game plan given the Giants approach on offense and defense. To this day I will never understand why the failed to make any major adjustments on either side of the ball. That game was there to win with some simple adjustments. To me they beat themselves that day. Get more players in the box on defense and on offense adjust to a more "take what the defense gives you" approach. The Giants played a light 2-5-4 if I recall. What they should have done is run the ball for 5 to 7 yards a play and force the Giants out of that. But they didn't. If the Bills play to potential on Saturday they will win. I think the Colts are a good team but this fear that they possess some unstoppable running attack and will run the ball down our throats and control the clock with a rookie RB is overblown. Plus this coaching staff is a lot smarter and flexible than its SB25 counterpart. They'll be ready.

Please tell us more here. I thought it was during the Clinton administration when China was granted most favored nation trade status and the Bush administration following it up to make it permanent. Those I believe are the events that started the process in motion. A more important issue going-forward is will Biden's well documented contacts and dealings with China compromise US interests?

To me the lesson here is this. If you riot and harm ordinary citizens and their property the political class will let it go and allow you and your property to be destroyed and ruined along with you being injured and possibly killed. It doesn't matter if you're a member of the far left or right or just some average person trying to eek out a living by working or running a business. They just don't care about you. That's pretty much the spot on truth. Disagree with me if you wish and hopefully you won't face this situation but if you do you'll find out the hard way I am right. But if anyone dares to threaten the lives or harm any member of the political class (Dem's or Rep's alike) they'll do a 360 and decide that its justified to use force as necessary and their lives matter more than yours. Like in Chicago and Seattle and Portland where the major called off the cops and let rioters and looters run wild in the shopping and downtown areas but called in the police to protect their home and the occupants when trouble started.

The problem we face is this isn't the end but the beginning. Its also a message to the radical left that they don't hold a monopoly on violence and anarchy. The left thinks the 2016 election was fixed and the right thinks the 2020 election was fixed too. Some have suggested what's coming is some form of a 2nd civil war. I fear they may be right. Personally, I have no dog in this fight and my suspicion is the people behind the scenes are inciting and backing both sides of the conflict for reasons that serve their own self-interest. I'm not sure why any of these protesters support Trump at this point. My postmortem on his 4 years in office is he failed to deliver on any of his promises and in some ways I view him as a "false prophet". He was going to get us out of foreign wars and to his credit didn't get entangled in any new adventures but still didn't withdraw us from anything either. He was going to drain the swamp but surrounded himself with swamp dwellers in his administration. No charges, indictments, trials, or convictions for any alleged "deep state" illegal operations. For all the heat Barr took from the left it looks like he was a deep state plant put in place to block any real investigations. Where are the readouts from all these investigations? For all of Trumps blusters and threats he failed to declassify any intelligence documents that would "prove" he was the target of conspiracies inside the government. For all his talk about supporting the little guy his tax reform enriched large corporations. His COVID strategy was a disaster as his team pushed all responsibilities to the States and did little to lead. His support for eliminating the ACA (Obamacare) made little sense given the context of a pandemic. His foreign policy alienated and pushed allies away and continually changed course. "The Wall" was never completed and to my knowledge Mexico has not paid one cent towards any of the work to date. He boasted about the stock market confirming this was the "greatest economy ever" but what it really represented was the income inequality gap between the rich and poor (last I checked poor people don't hold big stocks, IRA's, or 401K positions). Just to name a few things here.

I don't think it works either. If you watched the Colts game against the Jags with everything on the line you wouldn't be worried about anything. A late TD made the score look lopsided but Jacksonville hung in through the game until close to the end. Sure they have a good ground game and I'm sure the Colts will play better but if the Bills bring their killer instinct to the game we'll be moving to the next round when the game is over. Superior talent playing to its potential cannot be beaten.

Spot on. And I say this with 100% confidence. If the Bills execute their game plan as effectively and efficiently as they've done in the past month-plus it won't matter what strategy the Colts come into the game with here. One thing in the back of my mind is what I feel is some parallels of the post season leading up to SB25. But I think this 2020 team is so dialed in mentally and physically and appears to be on a mission. They won't falter.

For the Colts to win on Sunday they'll need to play better than they did against the Jags. Surprisingly, for a team faced with a win and in scenario they struggled to the end to beat that team playing for nothing to finish out the season.

No safety net for Tua this week. Will be interesting to see if it affects him mentally in a positive or negative fashion or maybe not at all..

For being regarding as a grand chess master of football Belichick never had good plan in place to acquire Brady's successor through the draft of free agency. The Cam Newton signing felt more like a desperation move rather than some part of a plan. Cam played well but his productivity plummeted as the season progressed. Brady left for Tampa where the team was accommodating his contract demands and the need to surround him with viable weapons at the skill positions. Along with what looks like a lot more input into the offense than Belichick would ever agree to. Not that Arians seems happy with this arrangement either but he's going with it. At the end of the day the Patriots have the same problem this year the Bills had until Allen was drafted and developed. No good option at QB.

Most likely he steps down or is removed prior to completion of his term as his mental condition will continue to deteriorate and worsen. Perhaps a better question is what is your expectation of the condition of the US economy and society in 4 years? Do you think Biden's election ushers in a new era of prosperity and enlightenment or do you think its going to be hard times? That would be the major factor in any decision regarding a second term.

Darnold goes to Pittsbutgh, backs up Ben for a couple seasons, settles into a system, and then takes over the starter job when he hangs it up.

So are you saying the 2016 Russian collusion story and 2020 election fraud are both hoaxes? To this point based on evidence and facts I'd tend to agree..

I think the Russia collusion theory is a big hoax manufactured by Obama and his cronies to cripple the new administration. And it worked pretty well for them.

You are invoking the quid pro quo argument. You are alleging some conspiracy to alter the election results. Assuming Trump offered a member of the state legislator "something" in return for his cooperation in blocking the certification of the election. The meeting itself is not illegal. And there is no evidence any arrangement was offered or accepted. What's to investigate? Two people had a meeting, it ended, and they left. I'm not attacking you or what you say. My basic contention is the entire political system is a fraud. And left, right, or center we're all getting played by one or another peddling some fraudster fantasy story about how much they care about everybody. And how wonderful life will be with them leading us forward to prosperity. I could suggest that any and all future meetings between politicians and lobbyists should be scrutinized to the same degree. What are they offering? Campaign contributions, jobs for family members, free trips, and other perks in exchange for political favors or lucrative legislation for their employers. Sounds illegal.

Challenging the results of the election have been within the framework of the legal and constitutional system. So what 'subversion' has taken place by utilizing legal recourse as prescribed by the law? Nothing. And to date the majority of court rulings have been against the campaigns claims. These rulings appear to be correct. Just because we might not "like" or "agree" with what someone is doing doesn't equate to them breaking the law. I've argued the dangers of efforts to politicize the legal system. Its a dangerous path to take. Such an investigation might be perceived by the heavily armed and motivated hard-core right as an attempt by the left to use state power against their political enemies rather than some fundamental pursuit of some legal claim. That would be a declaration of civil war and most likely open season on leftist politicians and their MSM agents. Who will stop it? Defunded police organizations? The FBI? There are only so many agents. National Guard, active military? Who's side would the rank and file soldier side with here? Left wing paramilitary groups like Antifa? Doubtful. BLM? Its not their fight. The rational course of action will be to just let it go and move on.

Looking around at what's happening I don't believe Trump's plan is to "steal the election". None of these legal challenges are having a real impact. The latest ruling in PA was a blow to his chances. I have doubts the US Supreme Court will hear the appeal or rule in his favor. From my interpretation of the PA court ruling is they acted properly so there is shaky and perhaps no legal ground for the Supreme Court to overrule the decision. None of the other state challenges are moving the vote totals to anything that might change the result. In a couple week's the electors from all states will meet and this will be over. Do I think the Democratic party machines is these key districts in the swing states played fast and loose with the mail-in vote process and vote counting? Absolutely. But they've had sufficient time to plan and prepare well for any conceivable vote challenge. Like a good friend of mine pointed out about the legal process "its not what you know or think its what you can prove" that matters. The time is short and the legal process is slow. The clock will simply run out on Trump here. I think Trump has a few objectives beyond reversing the election: 1). Stay relevant through to 2024. 2). Give his followers a cause going forward, the new resistance. 3). Engage in a "scorched earth" policy prior to the transition in January. 4). Position himself to be blameless for the economic and social disaster that awaits us in 2021 (you should position yourselves too).

I don't see either political party representing the interests of the majority of Americans. They seem to cater to the extremists on the left and right. I think both parties are corrupt beyond repair both morally and ethically. I think corporations have too much power in our current system. I think the wealthy and powerful exert control no matter which party is in power. I think both parties have a penchant for getting into wars and conflicts that don't serve our interests but rather some special interest. I think both parties are bankrupting the country through the accumulation of huge un-serviceable debts in order to buy votes and funnel government money to special interests while saddling future generations with the bill. And the future is here now. I think both presidential candidates are lifetime grifters and con artists. One feeding at the trough of the public treasury and selling influence for cash and the other a BS artist bilking and shaking down investors through the use of bankruptcy laws and shady side deals. I think the people in the middle, whatever their race, or gender, or ethnicity, or religion, or other attributes and beliefs, that earn a paycheck or run a business, stay out of trouble, pay their bills, do the right thing, and keep the economy and society going get the shaft. If they all went on strike for a week they could flush out the rats on both sides. I'd hope that moderates in both parties seeing common ground would break from both major parties and form a third party that would represent the middle ground where most people reside. A true populist movement. But this would take courage and vision. Something in short supply at the moment.

I was clear on your intent. But I just wanted to provide some specific examples. The liberals have a penchant for demanding "evidence" while providing none to support their claims. Like the Russian collusion hoax. No convictions, no trials, no indictments, no evidence, only unconfirmed suspicion but they "know" its true because CNN and MSNBC, the NY Times, and the Washington Post and their "anonymous sources said so. I wish the girls I knew in high school were as gullible as the lefties. I would have had a much better time! Regards..

See bold

Maybe. Or maybe not.