snafu

That’s the first play can I don’t like right there.

Nice pick up on 3rd. Take a couple shots into the end zone.

Greased pig.

Wow Devin. Keep fighting.

Beeeeezzzzzzz

Williams! shook up?

Holy Moses, great pass rush!

Murphy!

Points good

Get some points here. Any points.

Buffal Beeelz Ball.

It’s not just him. It is the pregame show non stop lovefest.

Mighty Taco T-shirt.

Yeah, this week has been eternal. Can’t wait!!!!! GO BILLS!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, that ruling missed the Impeachment Bus!!!

Ha! I was thinking that he's gotten so much better in three years.

Welcome to Sid's Room.

But don't you understand???? He waited until an election year!!!

It's like he saw a headline in the news while buying his cup of coffee this morning and then went to his Facebook page to tell him how he should feel.

Thanks for telling us what Trump was thinking in 2012 and 2013. In order to believe what I think you're saying, Trump would have needed to orchestrate an Iranian attack on our troops, and then decided to retaliate with airstrikes against said Iranians (in IRAQ, no less) spurring an attack on the U.S. Embassy, where (unlike in Libya) our citizens weren't harmed. I'd also need to completely discount the history of the person that we killed and completely discount reports that he was planning some other shi**y act against our citizens (or anyone else for that matter). Your Tweet/Meme is disingenuous. And I'm being polite. You really think that this is what yesterday's actions boils down to?

Mostly, I'm surprised that Iran went into Iraq and stayed there, and started having control over the Iraqi government and militias; and receiving $$ from Iraq for doing it (getting around sanctions). These two countries fought two awful, bloody wars with each other. And that's a result of us going into Iraq in the first place -- and mostly but not entirely leaving. Or (the optimistic view) is that we don't have the full story. The timing and overt reasoning of this seems like we're taking advantage of the Embassy provocation -- finally saying enough is enough with this guy. And at the same time there's massive protests against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iranian involvement in Iraqi governance, and in Iran (their internal protests). This assassination could be also seen as taking advantage of those developments. I mean, even in the short term, there's got to be some destabilization of Iranian operations in the region and the message that Iran isn't the local power they want to be. I don't think the President (or any President for that matter) comes up with the pluses and minuses of acts like these in a vacuum. He's got to be advised by somebody.

How many Republicans turn out to vote for President in NY, CA, IL, MA where the foregone conclusion is that electoral votes aren't going their way? How many have heard the "popular vote" complaint of Democrats who want to abolish the Electoral College? They they come out just to vote R in response to that. How many women voters came out and pulled the lever for Hillary just so they can say that they voted for the first woman president? They may not show up this time for an old white guy. I think your reason and my reasons will probably wash each other out.

Maybe we’re not loud enough when the Bills are on offense. ?

Probably. It is pretty clear that this Administration retaliates to any provocation in overwhelming ways. Either Iran provokes us again and sees a bigger response, or they see that if they provoke us then another, bigger response will inevitably follow. Problem is that Iran has a “don’t give a *****” attitude and a willingness to keep provoking. These Long War Journal guys know this region pretty well. Here’s an article of some interest. https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2020/01/u-s-kills-irans-qods-force-commander-and-iraqis-deputy-pmf-leader-in-strike-in-baghdad.php

They’ll frame it as Trump’s “wag the dog” moment coming just before his impeachment trial.