The Frankish Reich
-
Posts
13,738 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by The Frankish Reich
-
-
Thanks for the latest season recap! Obviously there’s something seriously wrong with me since I take weird pleasure in reading about how things went horribly wrong (again).
-
1 minute ago, PromoTheRobot said:
For Buffalo natives:
Baseball: Warren Spann
Hockey: Pat Kane
Basketball: Randy Smith
Football: Gronk
What a beautiful list, 1-3 that is ...
-
1
-
-
On 6/29/2021 at 1:01 PM, Bulldog said:
Edmunds is a much better player than many of his critics are giving him credit for. He is still very young & while not playing at a pro bowl level (yet!) - he has shown well on the field in his early years. Remember, also, that he played through injury a good chunk of last season. Perhaps the "he only makes tackles 5 yards down field " crowd is confusing him with our former LB Paul Pozluszny. Now there was a master of the downfield tackle.
All valid points.
But ... I never got the Poz hate. He was a second round pick who lasted 11 years as an NFL starting LB. If only our other 1st and 2nd rounders from that era had performed as well ...
-
1
-
-
Meanwhile, the muzzled Donald John Trump is given precious Wall St Journal op-ed page space to have his say:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-j-trump-why-im-suing-big-tech-11625761897?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
And I'm fine with this. Let's start with this whine from his piece:
"Perhaps most egregious, in the weeks after the election, Big Tech blocked the social-media accounts of the sitting president."
He says "in the weeks after the election ... ." Twitter banned him on January 8, more than two months after the election, and only after he incited a mob to storm the Capitol, and only after ON THAT VERY DAY he used the Twitter platform not to calm the mob, but to egg them on.
To the merits of the case: this is a profoundly stupid legal argument that will get zero traction in the courts. It is all symbolic rage.
Here's a great law school exam question:
Remember the short, inconsequential life of From the Desk of Donald J. Trump? The blog that was to serve as a forum for post-Twitter Trump? Was that a public forum? Should Trump (he is, after all, a former president, still supported by the taxpayers, unlike Twitter) have been required to host a guest post by me entitled "Donald Trump Should Be Indicted for Incitement to Riot?" If not, why not? If Twitter is a public forum/quasi-government actor subject to viewpoint-neutral First Amendment rules, why should the former president's website be considered something different?
-
10 hours ago, Big Blitz said:
I said this in January 2017
He needed to quit Social Media right then and there and say why.
But now, they need to bake the cake or we need to find a way to treat them as hostile foreign nations because they are.
This isn't NBC Nightly News giving you lib spin on events anymore in 22 minutes of air time.
These companies are the biggest threat to democracy, free thought, free expression, and free speech on the planet.
Never forget they know this:
2016
How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election
Google has the ability to drive millions of votes to a candidate with no one the wiser.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548/
That was 2016 now after 2020 they want you to think that claim was actually bogus.
So ... we can declare war on them? Bomb Menlo Park? What on earth are you talking about? These are U.S. companies, not "hostile foreign nations."
Anyone who wanted to know what Trump has to say could've simply gone to the From the Desk of Donald J. Trump website. Apparently few did.
-
3 hours ago, B-Man said:
THIS IS THE BACKGROUND AGAINST WHICH TRUMP IS SUING BIG TECH COMPANIES:
Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters believe Big Tech companies actively supported Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential election. A Scott Rasmussen national survey found that just 10% think they actively supported Donald Trump.
Twenty percent (20%) believe that the companies remained neutral and 23% are not sure.
In every measured demographic group, more voters believed that the companies supported Biden rather than Trump. Even Democrats, by a 3-to-1 margin, held that view.
Other data showed that 78% of voters believe tech companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google could swing the results of the election to benefit their preferred candidate. Additionally, 62% believe technology companies have too much influence on our politics and political campaigns.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives big tech companies special immunity from prosecution for things posted on their platforms. Since they received this immunity from the government, 63% of voters believe they should they be required to abide by the 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech.
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of voters believe it is more important to ensure that social media companies operate fairly rather than protecting the companies from government interference. A Scott Rasmussen national survey found that 19% disagree and believe protecting social media companies from government interference is the higher priority.
Big Tech has done a truly outstanding job of getting people to hate it.
I hate your product! How dare you preclude me from using it!! I'm gonna sue!!!!!
-
2
-
-
Are cartels running the U.S. government? Of course not.
Are they running the Dutch government? No, not that one either.
But when we see journalists getting assassinated in the Netherlands, it's clear that we're getting to a point where they're more brazen, less concerned about getting caught if they intimidate their opponents. In other words, it's a problem, and one that can't be ignored.
I tend to be of the Gary Becker (Nobel winning economist) school here: criminals and criminal organizations are rational, and they respond to incentives. The key disincentive here is swift, severe punishment.
A confession: I used to be much more of the legalize it and control it mindset. The opioid crisis kind of changed my mind on that.
-
1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said:
As an observation, gangs/cartels and other organized violent crime entities have become so powerful in certain areas of the world that government is either powerless or complicit in activities. Mexico has areas that cartels control. Haiti appears to have an assassination of their President, Columbia etc. In US and Canada we spend more and more on preventing over dose deaths which is a sign of resignation of control, the money laundering techniques now build condo towers, bridges, sub divisions, start businesses etc with ammunity.
Are we destined to become more violent societies as control shifts to the money of cartels.
We are defunding police, unable to prosecute enough suppliers, unable to stop supply, worshipping celebs that use hard drugs, pander to everyone that tries sobriety and fail, not caring that what they do is illegal.
Are our governments become more controlled and influenced by this endless money influence.? Is it too late?
What do you think?
Unlike some others, I will take your question seriously.
Here's a deeply disturbing incident that just happened: Dutch journalist investigating organized crime/international drug trafficking shot in an apparent assassination attempt:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/07/europe/dutch-reporter-de-vries-fight-shooting-intl-hnk/index.html
I don't know the full backdrop of the Haiti assassination (a country rife with corruption, but not necessarily of the drug cartel sort). The power of international criminal syndicates is not something we can ignore anymore as some kind of distant third-worldy problem. And it's not just drugs: it's cybercrime/ransomware, etc. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that ignoring it isn't working.
-
2
-
-
35 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:
Bills of the 90's had Thurman who was a MVP and Bruce Smith who was defensive MVP and a team that would have 5 HOF players if you include Lofton, a HOF coach, and multiple other Wall of Fame guys.
Sabres at the same time had an aging Mike Ramsey, a young Mogilny, future HOF Dave Andrechcuk, and they traded for Lafontaine. By the mid-90's they added Hasek.
The years you note were great, but the early 90's were much better. OJ was an all-world talent and is still in the conversation for greatest RB of all time, but the team was terrible.
Well, the 1990s
BravesClippers did have one winning season, so there's that .... -
On 7/2/2021 at 5:14 PM, Big Blitz said:
The TOS for the People's Republic of Silicon Valley are arbitrary and garbage.
ARBITRARILY Banning prominent influencers on their platforms because they disagree with their political opinions and hate their popularity is as Un American as it gets.
The door being open to ban, shadow ban, and suspend candidates in office or running for office is a flat out attack on democracy.
The fact these companies have that kind of power means they should be treated as foreign entities or hostile nations.
Period and full stop.
The first amendment doesn't apply to them because they don't apply the first amendment and they actively work to subvert the political system with rigged searches and fake trends.
They are publishers not forums of free and open debate.
Hiding behind terms of service is b.s.
It is refreshing to hear from a true First Amendment absolutist.
I know you supported the right - that's what it is, isn't it? - of various gay rights organizations to march in the NYC St. Patrick's Day parade, even though it was a parade organized and sponsored by a group that really didn't invite them. Your Bills Blitz Super Bowl Parade in February will no doubt welcome the Belichick-Brady GOAT FLOAT too. Just because I own and operate something doesn't mean that I should have the right to exclude anyone. First Amendment all the way, baby!
-
36 minutes ago, mannc said:
OJ really had only 5 exceptional seasons as a pro, but that has to be put in context. His first great season (1973), he was already 26 years old, having played four years in college and four years with the Bills, mostly as a decoy/blocking back due to almost criminal incompetence on the part of the Bills' organization. Nowadays, Simpson would have been on his second contract when he had his breakout season...We really only got a glimpse (magnificent as it was) of what could have been...
That's right. OJ only showed us glimpses (based on his usage, and the general incompetence of the offense as a whole) in his first few seasons.
The first NFL game I ever saw, at the old Rockpile. I was about 8 years old:
Scoring
MIA@BUF, 9-26-71
Dolphins Garo Yepremian 15 yard field goal 3-0
Bills Wayne Patrick 1 yard rush (Grant Guthrie kick)3-7
Dolphins Garo Yepremian 46 yard field goal 6-7
Dolphins Garo Yepremian 13 yard field goal 9-7
Dolphins Garo Yepremian 9 yard field goal 12-7
Dolphins Larry Csonka 1 yard rush (Garo Yepremian kick) 19-7
Bills O.J. Simpson 46 yard rush (Grant Guthrie kick)19-14
Dolphins Paul Warfield 23 yard pass from Bob Griese (Garo Yepremian kick) 26-14
Dolphins Garo Yepremian 48 yard field goal 29-14 FINAL
I was sitting with my dad in the end zone where OJ scored on the 46 yard run.
Me to Dad: Why don't they let OJ run more often?*
Dad: (something like this) "Because the coach is an idiot."
*he ran the ball 9 times that game. Csonka and Kiick ran it 20 each for the Dolphins, for 100+ yards. Each.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, Irv said:
I was in high school and college when President Reagan was in office. Yes he made many gaffes when public speaking. But this mess we have in office is worse. The only thing I could think of that could be worse is if that mental midget Harris became POTUS. For that I pray for senile Joe to complete his term. What a mess.
You're about my age then.
Reagan went from being a gaffe machine to being seriously addled, at least at times (and those times came more frequently with time) toward the end.
You are right, however: there is no comparison at all between the future Bush 41 and Kamala as veep. Bush 41 could make a legitimate claim to being the best qualified VP in history. Kamala, umm, not so much.
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, mannc said:
Campbell or OJ?
Campbell. He had 3 truly great seasons, then injuries, then just one very good season after that. OJ, for a running back, was pretty durable.
42 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:Campbell. He had 3 truly great seasons, then injuries, then just one very good season after that. OJ, for a running back, was pretty durable.
And I really should have included Barry Sanders as the third Mount Rushmore RB of my time. I think Jim Brown is the other.
EDIT: ok, so it occurred to me that I just put OJ on a theoretical Mt. Rushmore. Maybe that was a bad way of putting it ....
-
1 minute ago, Irv said:
Misinterpreted what you were trying to get across. Apologies. You’re on to something. Senile Joe is not running the country. Jill probably is. What a mess.
And you'll perhaps be surprised to learn that I believe Joe Biden in 2021 and Ronald Reagan in 1981 are at approximately the same stage of mental decline. In other words, some slippage is apparent, but it's not so severe as to impact their respective abilities to perform their jobs (with the assistance of huge and skilled advisory staffs). Clearly by his second term Reagan had progressed beyond that point. Will Biden by 2024-25? Who knows? Decline in mental acuity is a given, whether some of dementia is diagnosed or not. But the rate of decline is different in different people, and I know no way of predicting it. Having said that, I don't think it's a good idea to be electing men (and the decline comes earlier in men) in their 70s (even worse: who will be in their 80s before their term ends) to the most important job in the world.
-
Just now, Irv said:
I don’t know about that. Can you say with a straight face Hillary did not influence Bill?
I just did say that, noting that the even worse scenario is the "unelected, unvetted" policy maker, which obviously was directed at Hilary and Bill.
But let's be honest here: Nancy Reagan, while a forever loyal spouse (and from what we've heard, inveterate grudge-holder against those she thought wronged Ronnie) was kind of an idiot.
"Quigley was born in Kansas City, Missouri. She was called on by First Lady Nancy Reagan in 1981 after John Hinckley's attempted assassination of the president, and stayed on as the White House astrologer in secret until being outed in 1988 by ousted former chief of staff Donald Regan."
-
5 minutes ago, Irv said:
They’re alive and 86 and 42 aren’t exactly major milestones.
George W. Bush 75 (which kind of surprised me ... he looks good!) would be a better source of outrage. I think Google didn't feature a doodle on the 75th anniversary of Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter, something far rarer than the 100th birthday of a dead person.
Really, First Ladies (or Gentlemen, when we get them) ought to be basically ignored. This is something that I really dislike in American politics, the focus on the First Lady as some kind of unofficial running mate or even worse, unelected, unvetted policy maker. Dennis Thatcher, American turns its lonely eyes to you.
-
Coalitions are never stable in American politics. The best analysis I've seen is from Sean Trende:
https://newrepublic.com/article/106507/lost-majority-future-government-sean-trende
"once majorities are formed, they immediately start falling apart. He attributes this to a couple of things that seem uncontroversial, if not banal: “roads not taken”—the many choices parties have to make as they reach various forks in the political road—and “contingency”—the tendency of events like wars, recessions, and domestic unrest to impact parties’ success or failure. Together, these factors make majorities of any kind, even so-called realigning ones, highly unstable.
Trende concludes his analysis by looking forward, considering factors that might consolidate a Democratic majority in the future—for example, the rise of the Hispanic population. He has multiple objections to the argument that Hispanics will underpin a lasting new Democratic majority coalition, starting with the slow rate at which this population is affecting the voter pool and the possibility that its growth rate might decelerate over time. But his chief point is the contingent nature of this group’s support. As with other immigrant groups, he argues, it is likely that support for the currently favored party will decay over time. What looks good from “straight-line projections,” he cautions, is likely to fall apart ..."
Nothing unexpected here, at least not by the the people who are something other than cheerleaders for one side or the other ...
-
1
-
-
On 7/3/2021 at 10:53 AM, RoyBatty is alive said:
He is betting on Tagovailoa to ascend is he and then claims the Dolphins have a higher ceiling? LOL. Well maybe all except the most important position , QB. Anyone that thinks Tua has a higher ceiling than J Allen is delusional. And three seasons predictions in the NFL are fairly worthless, you can easily go from one of the best to worst or vice versa trams in the NFL given three years,
It would've been quite amusing exactly 2 years ago for someone to say that Josh Allen will be in the top 3 QBs in the NFL by 2020.
EDIT: such is the nature of punditry. SI ran a now famous cover story when the Astros were the worst team in baseball (by far) c. 2014 - "Your 2017 World Series Champions." If they had run a cover story with the caption, "Expect the Red Sox and Cardinals to continue to dominate their leagues for the next 3 years" nobody would've remembered it ... even if it had come true. It's fun to think about what happens to teams that load up on high draft picks. Sometimes it does all come together at once. Sometimes.
-
1
-
-
On 7/3/2021 at 7:11 AM, SoCal Deek said:
He was the best running back I’ve ever seen play the game. In somewhat a parallel to today’s Bills it’s interesting how OJ never took off until Lou Saban came back and unleashed the running game. Before that OJ was just wallowing around in a lack luster start to his professional career. I wonder if the same could happen to the current Bills if they focused more on the run game. Something changed in those early Saban teams. I’m guessing it had a lot to do with scheme, practice, and the offensive line.
Maybe only Earl Campbell in my memory was his equal (Jim Brown was before my time), but he sustained that level for a much shorter period of time.
-
Nary a mention of the Dalai Lama's 86th today?
Kevin Hart's 42nd?
Nancy's astrologist KNEW they'd do this to her but she was powerless to stop it.
I am outraged!
-
On 7/2/2021 at 8:58 AM, jwhit34 said:
The Golden Age of Buffalo sports was that 1973-75 or '76, don't forget the Buffalo Braves who had McAdoo. OJ and McAdoo were MVPs and Perreault was one of the top players in the NHL, the French Connection the best line in the league.
I have long thought the '75 OJ year was just a little better because of the TDs and the receiving threat. Also in '73 the team was not considered a playoff threat so while they were obviously trying to win games, the focus was really on the rushing record. The '75 year was phenomenal because they were coming off a playoff year, expectations were high and opponents were gunning for them.
My family moved away from Buffalo just before that time. It wasn't easy being a little kid trying to follow Buffalo sports teams from the opposite coast! Football wasn't so bad with its once a week schedule and the spotlight on OJ. But before the internet - before even espn - being a Braves and Sabres fan meant trying to figure out what the hell happened last night by reading a box score or two-line recap in the next day's newspaper, provided the game finished on time to make the next morning's paper.
-
1
-
-
Starting with the idea that this is just plain stupid … a little explanation of what may have gone wrong.
I used to spend a lot of time (too much time) with baseball stats. Baseball is the sport most amenable to these types of stats - it’s a team game composed of individual one on one performances. The standard way to project a player’s future performance is to look at his past 3 or 4 seasons in a weighted average. Something like 40% most recent year, 35%/25% for the 2 years before that. The weightings change as we learn which curve fits better, but the concept remains: it has proven to be the best concept for projecting future performance. Period.
Football isn’t baseball. It is much more of a true team game. But if you’ve got a baseball analytics background, your tendency is to use the same tricks. Take a weighted 3 year average of Josh Allen and, well, that rough first year will drag him down, even if only weighted at something like 20%. Should we focus only on his most recent season? No, that would be a mistake too. Should we then go all subjective and say that I just feel that he’s only scratched the surface of his potential? That too is silly.
Long way of saying I just ignore these types of lists in football. One that is based on real value (Expected Performance - Salary) does have some value because it tells us the relative value of young/pre-free agency players vs. free agent veterans. If Josh ranked 20th or so on that list with Trevor Lawrence above him, well, that list is worth arguing over. This one isn’t.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, RJ (not THAT RJ) said:
What's weird about this game is that the Giants were in control, leading 17-7 in the second half, then suddenly forgot how to tackle Terry Miller and Roland Hooks. Momentum shift was bizarre.
I’ll just say this: I am astounded by the level of detail of the memories of some of my fellow Bills fans. I barely remember Terry Miller, and I am quite sure I must have watched this game (I was still in school and I lived in the NYC market at the time).
-
2
-
-
On 6/21/2021 at 9:21 AM, 716er said:
I try to make a post and I stahmble
OP should make a new thread for every person he or she has never heard of who has an opinion on the flag. Might finally flush the #deepstate thread!We must never flush the deep state thread! Too much demonstrably wrong insanity there.
don't sleep on...Reggie Gilliam?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Come to think of it, I don’t recall us ever using Gilliam on the fly route.