4merper4mer

It’s a minor point but Kaep was also being directed by his commie girlfriend. He’s not really all that bright on his own. It’s also possible that Butker is being guided by his wife, a pastor or another.

What a load. You put words in someone’s mouth by predicting they will put words in your mouth then get upset about it. For Pete’s sake.

This is a four page thread and you are early to post. Having not read through yet my guess is that you’ll take heat for observing Josh was less than perfect last year. Third rail stuff. My take is that 2024 will be a transition year for Allen. I’m more interested in the end than the beginning. The Bills lost an absolute ton of serious leadership. Diggs, Morse, even Davis on the O. Poyer on the D. We also lost Tre who was a definite leader but with more of a fun personality type. The O leaders that are left: Josh, Dawkins, Brown, Knox…..they are all goofballs. IMO we badly need Hyde for one more year. 2024 will require adaptability on Josh’s part in that he will have to be the adult in the room at times. He has never had to be that. We’ll see if he can do it. Part of me wonders if Beane is playing 3D chess to force the issue by picking up malcontents like Claypool and MVS. Too much comfort zone is bad for Josh. I’d like to see him pissed off more frequently and Claypool will piss just about anyone off. He is also expendable. Allen has all the ability and on field desire that can be imagined. Will he maximize his ability by making good decisions, preparing properly and leading? My best guess is that the first half of the season is disappointing and bewildering. I’m hopeful for the second half and even more hopeful for 2025 but he needs to get serious first. Time to grow up.

You’d have a better chance of burying a $100 bill in your yard and a money tree sprouting.

I did mistake the ESPN guy’s quote as being from the attorney. My bad.

He seems to be subtly making light of the officer noting his uniform pants were ripped. “I’ve never in all my years……”. Either: 1. The officer was truly dragged to the ground and his pants ripped, in which case the damage to pants might not be a big deal but knocking an officer to the ground certainly seems to be. Nothing to make fun of there. Or 2. The officer was not really dragged to the ground so the pants weren’t really ripped at all. Why not focus on the truth of the report as a whole and leave the pants out of it? To me he seems to deny the main portion of the police report but also acknowledge……in a mocking way……the pants being damaged. That seems dumb.

I’m not an attorney but publicly mocking an arresting officer seems like a bad strategy to me.

The following is directed more at Forbes and the “study” they cited than at you:

Poor people are never happy? Money = happiness?

He failed to understand that I called Dr. K “Doc” but I’m not supposed to question reading comprehension? Shirley.

Not inherently.

Be careful backing Bill into a corner like that because he may respond harshly. Bill HATES corners.

I had potholes listed at #5 but should point out that they’re not always bad. Sometimes potholes send a spandex mafia member flying.

Failed again. I will repeat….I responded to a post by EII that did not comment on Butker’s speech. It only mentioned Butker’s economic status. Therefore the contents of his speech were not relevant to my response. It also did not mention the color of Butker’s car or the length of Butker’s hair, so I left those out too. How could I “spin it” into class warfare, when economic status was the entirety of the post to which I responded? There was nothing else in there at all. It was 100% about economic status to begin with. Your reading comprehension remains poor. Your last paragraph is pretty twisted dude. I haven’t defended “the rich”. I defended Butker’s right to speak as he sees fit. You, the arbiter of all things economic, have defined Butker as rich so you’ve reached a poor conclusion again. He’s a person. I’d also defend the right of a person you define as poor, short, tall, straight, gay, black, white or whatever else to speak. Keep defining people in ways that dehumanize them if you’d like, but pardon me if I don’t. I’ll even say that people that use racist tropes in a screen name and avatar should be able to speak their mind, even when barely literate. I consider the right to free speech important so limiting it for anyone is dangerous.

I replied to Dr. K and called him Doc. What part of that has anything to do with my reading comprehension? It seems to me that yours is a bit off……still. As for the rest of your poorly written post…..I tried hard to decipher your “English” and failed. For instance you said “….reminding you of some opinions you willing share”. I can’t answer that because I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. I concur that I wrote something that could be considered a diatribe, but it was not irrelevant. Butker’s wealth is irrelevant yet was the only thing mentioned by EII. He in no way focused on anything Butker said…..only his wealth. You then decided to define “rich” for all of us. I was trying to point out that the thread was meant to be primarily about the speech, not the speaker, or at least that I thought that made more sense. I admittedly did it in an indirect way and this sailed waaaaaaaaay over your head. That is why I asked about your reading comprehension. In the future when replying to you I will try to use small words.

Oh look everyone…..someone who actually acknowledges the right of someone to state their own opinions even if he thinks the other person’s opinions are foolish. And look…..he focused on the opinion, not the speaker’s race, religion, economic status or some other group lumping. Hey Doc, wouldn’t it have been easier if you just called him rich or defined rich as making 300k or inferred the opinions of others for simply pointing that out? Sure it might be weak minded but at least you could avoid all that mind exercising that made it stronger.

You are fixated primarily on his income, then his beliefs, then your own conclusions about his beliefs. Then, after all of that, you’ve somehow made conclusions about what I think when I’ve offered no opinion about Butker’s speech whatsoever. In fact, I haven’t even read it and likely wont. I simply observed the venom spewed at him…..not his opinion…..based on his income. I’ll agree or disagree with the opinions of any person based on the opinion itself, not based on lumping that person into some category like you’ve repeatedly done as did the poster to whom I originally responded. None of this has a damn thing to do with Butker’s income despite the apparent raging jealousy you harbor that induces you to twist around the real topic at hand. Butker has the right to his own opinions whether they’re brilliant, moronic, or anywhere in between. So too do the people you’d incorrectly assume I’d like to stop from speaking. I might call someone a moron but I’m careful not to lump that moron into some group as if it has some causal effect. Your irrational post above continues your obsession with “the rich”. Get over it dude. You’ve also decided that people’s who have different definitions of rich than yours are full of “utter bs”. Get over yourself.

Reading comprehension not your thing? Calling Butker rich is what I suggested. The other poster mistakenly called him a “millionaire” which is a more precise term. It is better for vilifying someone if you use vague terms. The other poster implied a causal relationship between Butker’s wealth and his speech. In fact he focused on the wealth and really didn’t dissect the content of the speech at all. It’s as if a “poor” person couldn’t possibly have a similar opinion. This is good because it furthers the cause of the proletariat revolution which clearly will solve all of the world’s problems. I was just pointing out that millionaire was a bad word to use because it limits the pool of villains. You shouldn’t do that. Villains are always needed.

No no no. Don’t say millionaire. Stick with “rich”. It’s a malleable adjective that can be changed to suit your purpose. Sure, there are other factors that can be used to stifle people’s speech or any of their silly supposed “rights”, but why waste one by using a somewhat precise definition? You’re doing a great job of ignoring the speech and attacking the speaker but you’re being too specific. Religion, race, economic status, sexual preference, and many other factors of choice can be twisted enough to suit just about any purpose. Don’t define them precisely because it limits your options. Remember the strategic plan of Pol Pot. 1. Kill the rich 2. ?????? 3. Profit. Now remove the “rich” and substitute any of the other traits and you’re right there with some of the thought leaders in all of human history.

1. The spandex mafia 2. The whining from the spandex mafia 3. The lack of banning of the spandex mafia 4. The dumb advertising on the spandex of the spandex mafia 5. Potholes

The schedule hasn’t been officially announced. There are surprises every year.

Let me guess. Bob Kraft?

If Cleveland can, then Buffalo can. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZzgAjjuqZM

Beane set us up……..and two posts later Doc knocked us down. Oh well, maybe someday.

Or in this case street fleet.