snafu

Oh my, that second line is "innovative"... I would have thought maybe they move Reinhart down to the second line (I would have been torn on that decision), not Skinner. And maybe I can see a guy "like" Sobotka on that second line wing, but not Sobotka. If it goes well, I'll be happy to be wrong (my usual condition ). Based on the last few days of practice, the top two lines seem set with Jack Eichel between Victor Olofsson and Sam Reinhart, and Marcus Johansson centering Jeff Skinner and Vladimir Sobotka.

Liar!!!!

Have you never experienced a Bills/Pats game before?

My Jets fan friend called me after the game. He was convinced that head shot to Allen was because we were getting in a roll, and NE couldn’t let that happen. He was pissed off and complaining. Wouldn’t shut up about it.

Okay, now pile drive Brady

Maybe my favorite game.

Beeeez! Now Knox!!!!!

Can’t we nail Brady after he hands off? Won’t that also stop the clock?

Lee effin Smith

Grounding again

3 low throws. Each would’ve been for good yardage.

Not grounding there?

Head shot fumble TD

He mentioned it just before going to the commercial

Kill Brady time. Take the 15 yard penalty.

Keep running to set up the pass. Please.

That was mother *****!

*****!

Allen gonna get killed today☹️

5 to win. 10 to put the fear of God in them that they’re going to lose. I think we lose a heartbreaker.

See — that’s NOT hearsay.

Isn’t part of the whistleblower complaint (the August 25 phone call part) statements of a third party without first hand knowledge of the facts? Aren’t those statements being made to prove the facts of the matter which they assert? You’re parsing. Just because the complaint isn’t being offered as evidence in a legal proceeding (at least not yet) doesn’t mean the statements aren’t hearsay. If someone were to follow your conclusion, they would have to completely discount the complaint — because the statements weren’t made in in this particular “proceeding” by anyone BUT the complainant. In fact, since the complaint was made in compliance with a statutory regime, and it is meant to be ultimately investigated and used as evidence, anyone who looks into the future can see that this will be argued as “legal” hearsay, whatever the hell that means. It is hearsay now and it will be hearsay in the future. I can’t believe you’re stuck on this issue.

Well I’m not sure I agree with it. I was just elaborating.

I’m not sure I follow how China’s coal burning affect our trade deficit. Bloomberg wasn’t talking about selling them energy. If it has to do with what another poster brought up (selling LNG to China) then I agree. However we should do it the Chinese way...have China pay us not only for the fuel and the transportation costs, but make them pay us to build the LNG tanks and holding facilities at their ports and construct their pipelines at their expense. And then require them to give up some of their sovereignty to us so that we can patrol and protect our newly installed port facilities and pipelines with our own personnel. You know, like how China does it with handfulls of foreign nations.

Horowitz, Huber and Durham walk into a bar...and nothing happens.