mjd1001

I didn't know about the port fees now.... As Reuters reported in late March, Republicans' current plan is to begin charging port fees of as much as $1.5 million on Chinese-built cargo ships at every port of call. They aren't based on the value of the cargo that's offloaded at each port, either, so while a ship that drops all its cargo at the Port of Los Angeles would pay a single port fee, a ship planning to stop at multiple U.S. ports would be charged the same fee at each stop. To avoid stacking port fees, shipping companies will most likely begin avoiding smaller ports, and with less work to do, those ports will begin cutting jobs. Meanwhile, major ports will see massive increases in traffic, leading to long delays as demand overwhelms capacity. Some shipping companies may redirect their ships to Canada or Mexico and rely on trucks to bring their goods into the U.S., too. Full article here: https://www.jalopnik.com/1829700/trump-tariffs-port-fees-potential-impact/

Or people have different tastes. You are not the authority on what is awful for the masses you know. Many others on here are perfectly fine with hit, over an inconsistent, overhyped, too much cheese and toppings laden local pizza.

I have an economics background, but I'm not schooled all that well in tariffs. Maybe someone can explain something to me I have been thinking about a lot...that having a trade deficit while having the world's defacto reserve currency and a national budget debt/deficit can be a good thing. This may be overly simplistic, but here goes: -The USA has a trade deficit with most nations. We give 'dollars' to them for 'stuff'. -Now, those other countries...the businesses there or the individuals there, can't simply convert all of the US$ to their local currency to spend...there isn't enough of the local currency. And unlike the USA (the worlds reserve currency), if those other nations just printed their dollars to absorb the currency conversion, it would create so many of their own dollars that it would cause massive inflation there. -So those dollars, maybe after switching hands a few times among businesses or even other nations, eventually have to make their way back to the USA. The foreign holders of them buy US real estate (A lot of Chinese property owners in Florida recently). They buy US stocks. US bonds (corporate or treasuries). -So in regard to the above, the 'trade deficit' is a matter of semantics. The trade between the nations is really even. We buy their 'stuff', and in a round-about way, in exchange for that stuff they (eventually) get stuff from us, land, houses in the USA, stocks of US companies and bonds.' -If Trumps goal is to reduce the trade deficit, you are just moving stuff around. As mentioned above, there is no real 'deficit', as other countries are getting an equal value of us dollars and investments as they are for the goods we buy. Trump wants to reduce the 'goods we buy from them' part of equation. -But if you reduce the 'good we buy from them' part of the equation, they the other side is reduced also. They 'buy' less real estate from us (taking away a large form of support for the housing market). They 'buy' less bonds from us (taking away a source of demand for bonds that keeps interest rates low). The 'buy' less US companies and stocks (taking away a support of our financial markets) -By reducing the trade deficit, you are reducing a 'problem' that not only have we learned to deal with, that we have set up our economy around so it benefits us in other ways.....but you are reducing a 'problem' that will possibly cause other problems that we are NOT able to deal with right away (reduced foreign investment in our real estate and financial markets) I guess, our 'deficit' with them is not really a deficit. We get something, they get something. By trying to reduce the deficit, all we are doing is moving things around and end up with the same value, but possibly new problems that we aren't used to dealing with. When the system is set up, and massive changes are made to the system, it causes friction. That friction slows things down temporarily until the everyone can re-adjust to the system. But in the end, the total value of things doesn't really change all that much, minus the friction you created.

I have lived most of my life in WNY, and have had a lot of bad, greasy, bland sauce tasting, toppings sliding off, from local pizza sports. I have had Pizza over my life from dozens and dozens of local places, from Depew, Cheektowaga, Williamsville, Lancaster, the city of Buffalo, Tonawandas, Lewiston, Niagara Falls and East Aurora. Some good, some not so good. When I get a pizza from Dominos it is the same each and every time, consistent....and while its not loaded with toppings, it is better than all of the 'bad' pizza's I have had from local spots.

I don't mind it at all. do they put less toppings and cheese on it than many local spots? Sure, but to me it tastes fine.

Neuroscientist wants the NFL to investigate Josh Allen’s apparent head injury, despite the QB passing a concussion check https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/sport/josh-allen-buffalo-bills-chris-nowinski-spt-intl/index.html

Something needs to be done for what? I'm not happy with the last 2 games for sure, but once they went with trading Diggs, making other cuts/roster moves, I accepted this year as a 'cap reset yet'. My realization, my expectation, is that this year is going to be a little bit tough--do the best you can--and things get better next year. I don't want them trading major assets, I don't want them taking another step back right now in terms of 'future cap', to a short term fix. Don't get me wrong, I do not want them to lose, I do not want them to do nothing at all, but improve the team the best you can without doing anything major that is 'outside the plan' for this year.

He's not as bad as I thought/feared. I don't think he's great, nor do I think he's awful. Rather listen to him broadcast a game than play in one.

I have felt the same way about Mahomes and Allen, and although things seem a BIT different this year, I'm still feeling the same: -Overall, especially in 'must win' or 'must score' situations, they are both great, but Mahomes is a bit better. But again, in 'most' situations, Mahomes has the slight edge still. -"Peak" Mahomes, vs "Peak" Allen, both playing at their absolute best, Allen is better. Allen at his absolute peak makes his offense unstoppable no matter what you do.

When someone says that, I always think of Rocking in the Free World by Neil Young, or of course Born in the USA by Springsteen. Both songs are almost 'prostest-level' songs about what is wrong in the country, yet because the chorus is memorable they are often used as uplifting songs, especially at political events or at sporting events between nations.

I usually do and I kinda do like watching it alone. 3 out of 4 games I watch alone. The times that I don't, I prefer if its with someone like me, someone who will watch the game, talk about a good play vs a bad play, notice things. Watching games with anyone who just screams and yells, swears at anything bad and high five about anything good, or who demands players be benched or coaches be fired.....those are the people that I absolutely do NOT want to be near during a game.

Not really any one team. Basically, the team that the media is hitting us over the head with. When I hear about the current 'hot team' that the commentators can't stop talking about, are they the 'greatest ever'....stuff like that. I don't really hate teams and root against them for who they are, nor players. Its basically just whoever is 'over-hyped'

True, I would be. Financially I think I'll be fine no matter what. Its just disappointing. Its like, having to choose between 2 really bad choices...when at least one party (Republicans) potentially have policy on their side that I actually like, just give us (yeah, there are a lot of us that feel this way) a decent candidate from your side to vote for. We don't need someone special....the Republicans (historically, I don't want increased tariffs) have policy on the side I want. I'll vote that way with just a decent candidate. It shouldn't be too hard.

I'll agree with you almost totally. When I speak to/with people who support him and I say that I don't, they almost always come back with "you listen to cnn or msnbc too much". Nope, thats not true at all. I actually watch his interviews, I read what he says directly. And I agree with your conclusion. I really do not like Harris or Biden all that much. If Harris gets elected, I'll survive. I won't like it but I'll be OK. Hopefully we'll get a split congress so not much of consequence will happen for the next 4 years. But its Trump....the only way I can say it is give me a different republican candidate. Someone who doesn't ramble like he is losing his mind with age. Someone who isn't triggered by talk about 'crowd size'. Someone with some dignity, someone who doesn't resort to juvenile name calling. Someone who will talk about conservative POLICY they want to implement and do so more by saying why they want to do it and less just complaining about the Democrats. I'd LOVE to vote for a republican like that over almost any democrat...but Trump? He is the absolute opposite of just about any of those things that I look for in a leader. I don't want, nor need, an 'alpha male' as president.

I posted this in another thread here but it might be appropriate to post it here: "Interest rates slashed to help economy Fed's dramatic action lowers target on key short-term rate for the first time in 4 years - to 4.75% - and signals more cuts could be coming. By Paul R. La Monica, CNNMoney.com editor at large September 18 5:03 PM EDT NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Federal Reserve cut the target on a key short-term interest rate by half of a percentage point Tuesday to 4.75%" That article is not from yesterday, it is from 2007. https://money.cnn.com/2007/09/18/news/economy/fed_rates/index.htm Seem famaliar?

So, a month and a half later from when this thread last had a post: Here is an article from Sept 18 (today being sept 19, a day after the fed cut rates by 50bp) Interest rates slashed to help economy Fed's dramatic action lowers target on key short-term rate for the first time in 4 years - to 4.75% - and signals more cuts could be coming. By Paul R. La Monica, CNNMoney.com editor at large September 18 5:03 PM EDT NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Federal Reserve cut the target on a key short-term interest rate by half of a percentage point Tuesday to 4.75% Here is the thing. That article is not from yesterday, it is from 2007. https://money.cnn.com/2007/09/18/news/economy/fed_rates/index.htm -On the same exact date in 2007, the fed cut rates by 50bp, the same date they did this year. -In 2007, stocks rallied hard in the days after the cut. This morning, stocks are looking to rally hard after the cut. I'm not going to repost or restate everything I (and others) have said in this thread, but look at the above posts, the parallels between 2007 and 2024 are really really strange.

When Diggs gets traded, like many diva type players, he'll be on his best behavior Initially. Combine that with a high skill set and he was good for the team for a couple of years. This year... And last year... It didn't seem like he was behaving all that well. We don't know for sure but it doesn't appear as if Josh Allen was pounding the table to keep him here. Add to that some age and a declining skill set and it's probably good. They made the move.

I disagreed with the above 2 to begin with: -The offensive line was not great last year. They had some good games run blocking, but also some games they couldn't do anything Run blocking they certainly were not great to me. And Pass blocking? I think most other QBs other than Allen would have been sacked a lot more. -Poyer and Hyde, you could see they were losing a step over the last couple of years. Last year was even worse. A lot of what you lose in their 'experience' I would rather make up with some added athleticisim.

Agreed. A lot of people read a thread, and if they have an opinion they post it. That leads to a lot of posts. There are others that are on these forums probably close to as much, they read the same threads, put as much thought to them...and they DO reply if something new is to be added to the thread. If they are repeating what someone else said, a lot of those people just don't post. They read as much, they add MEANINGFUL participation almost as much. They just aren't here to run up the 'post count'.

For all of those saying Hill's civil rights were violated....I don't think that is true, at least according to a couple previous Supreme court rulings. There may be a gray area in the law, the law may not clearly define this exact situation, but that is why we have court rulings, and in this case the Supreme court that ruled the officers CAN remove him from his vehicle. Having deeply tinted windows that the officer can't see through, its a grey area but yes, the police have the right to do what they did.... Two Supreme Court decisions allow police officers to remove drivers and passengers from a car during a traffic stop. Now, there are ways the police officer can escalate the above response to their request to roll down your window. If an officer feels threatened or that the traffic stop can be handled more effectively, they can order the driver and any passengers out of the vehicle. The U.S. Supreme Court decision for Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) says officers can remove the driver from a vehicle during a traffic stop. The court’s decision in Maryland v. Wilson (1997) concluded that passengers can also be pulled from a car during a traffic stop. Both of these “intrusions” are thought of as “matters of course” and are not considered violations of the Fourth Amendment. As such, let’s say you only crack your window 1/4 of the way down and refuse to roll it down any further. The officer might just continue the traffic stop without further comment on the window. Alternatively, they might find this suspicious or discomforting to their safety. Regardless of the officer’s sentiment, they can’t search your vehicle without probable cause. However, they can order you out of the vehicle to continue and complete the traffic stop. You can find this ruling various spots on the internet, but here is just one easy one to find: https://www.motorbiscuit.com/how-far-roll-down-window-traffic-stop/

But what if is windows was illegally tinted so they could not see inside? In that case do they have the right to demand he keep it rolled down? As others have said, it can be a safety issue for the officer, if the window is tinted too much he can't see if anyone inside the car is reaching for a weapon.

And others have said, it appears he rolled up the window because he wanted to call his agent right away and reached for his phone. Suppose the cops could see a TINY bit though all that tint....its likely they couldn't see he was reaching for, or using a phone, but they COULD see he was reaching for something. From Hill's point of view, hes 'too dumb' to think from anyone else's point of view other than his own. He thinks 'all he did' was reach for his phone, but from the officers point of view, Officers have been shot when someone inside a car reaches for a gun that they can't see. It has happened.

Yeah, from a cops point of view you pull someone over they keep the window rolled down, especially if it is tinted that dark. The moment that the window is rolled back up I would order them to roll it down. It only has to be rolled up for 2 seconds where you can't see what they are doing inside the car to give them enough time to grab a weapon. The cops were aggressive, I'll say that, but I would not, for one second, blame the cops for wanting him out of the car when he rolls up a dark tinted window and won't roll it back down immediately when they ask.

30 minutes of the best of the best marching bands. They get 5-6 minute each...put on the best show possible. And I'm not joking, some of the 'shows' that some marching bands put on are pretty damn impressive.

The more popular a team gets the more it brings in the casual fans. They team stays successful and gains even more popularity, and even MORE fans who never followed football want to join the party. I lived in Boston from the late 1990's through the middle-late 2000s and I saw this there. Listen to WEEI and the Pats talk (when they were bad or average) had some good callers and bad callers, but overall more good than bad. As the Pats got better, more and more of the bandwagon fans started to participate, and, nothing against more people becoming fans, but, those bandwagon fans weren't exactly that schooled in the sport...hence you got a lot of bad callers. I see this here with the Bills the past 5 years. I see it on this very FORUM over the last 5 years. I don't think its more complicated than that.