cle23

No, but again, the cartels aren't just showing up and forcing people to take their drugs. The demand is here, and it started mostly because of prescriptions. Now it has exploded well past just prescriptions at this point, but that is how it started. The cartels sell opioids because that is what the demand is there for, and therefore the money and power that comes with it. In the 80's the cartels sold mostly cocaine. Now, there is still a demand for that, but now it has shifted in favor of opioids because that is where the demand is. I am by no means an expert, but my understanding is that opioids are easier and cheaper to make as well.

You are right, I have not. But the cartel doesn't go door to door and force you to take them. The medical community has pushed opioids for years and then it caught up to us. I had major ear surgery at 15, and the doctor refused to let me leave without Oxycodone Obviously there are other ways to help reduce use, but the main thing is to lessen the demand for the use. If there are huge numbers of buyers as there are now, the drugs will find their way here.

My issue isn't with people wanting our leaders to do more. I think we can all agree that they need and should do more. The opioid crisis has been largely ignored for years now, with steps taken to help correct the crisis largely being a show more than substance. The wall doesn't and never was going to work. Looser immigration policy won't work. The best way to reduce the opioids coming into the country is the lessen the demand that we as a society and medical community have largely created.

I agree that it would be wrong to blame Trump for CAUSING the virus. I do think he mishandled it once more information was known, but who knows how each President would have handled it. I also think his personality and constant blame game and administration issues were the cause of him losing the election, with the handling of the virus a part of that. I am not a Biden fan. Gun to my head, if I had to pick between he and Trump, I would probably pick Biden, but I did not vote for either in the past election because I did not feel either was worthy of the office.

It is disingenuous to imply that Biden has caused our opioid crisis when opioids have been a crisis for 10+ years. I am not saying Biden is blameless, but opioids have gotten worse under every President, including Bush, Obama, Trump, and now Biden. Where were you guys blaming Trump as well? The issue is that opioids are a growing problem, not which President to blame the problem on.

8-0 Cleveland in the 2007 blizzard game in Cleveland.

I am all for closing THAT loophole. But not removing all mail in ballots as a way to do it, as you suggested.

Yes, because opioids have only become a problem recently.

That is just recently though, not the long term data. The most recent presidential election, yes, it was much higher in democratic percentage, but that is also going along with a lot of the COVID situation, with democratic voters being much more likely to follow the guidelines. Hell, Trump encouraged people to ignore the guidelines, and obviously his voters were disproportionately Republicans. Historically the numbers have been much more even, though they do tend to lean Democrat some. In 2018, 25% of people voted by mail. Should we just invalidate 25% of votes then? You do know that mail in voting started in the Civil War era, right? But somehow only recently it became "fraudulent."

I agree with most of what you said, except this: "Debates should be mandatory in an election, and no votes should be cast before one has occurred. " The debates are pointless. 95% of people have already decided well before the debate who they will vote for, mostly by whatever letter is by their name. Also, the debates are pointless in the sense that it is all just personal attacks on the other candidate and very, very little actual substance. I wish there was a rule that you can only speak as to what you plan to accomplish, with no attacks on each other at all. But that'll never happen as it'll drive down ratings. This isn't just a Democrat issue though. It happens on both sides. And the issue there being that there are millions of legitimate votes that wouldn't get counted if that was the case.

To be fair, teams aren't leaving because of the quality, they are leaving for money.

I could honestly see them having both teams wear dark uniforms if the snow is as bad as it calls for.

But that is literally how every team handles the run. Bad teams rarely give up 4-5 yards every carry, but they consistently give up chunk yardage. It's like saying "Outside of the 2 late 4th quarter touchdown, the defense only gave up 10 points." You have to take the whole game into account. Chubb averages 5.5 yards a carry, but gets plenty of 1-3 yards runs to get there.

Potential blizzard or?

And most of it has nothing to do with Brissett. Plus, it's been 9 games with a backup. Clevelands defense is the main issue right now. Talent, but bad communication.

Not that it matters much, but Keenum had 375 yards in those 2 games, not 462. The rest was spot duty in other games. Keenum is a decent backup, and can manage a game, but he likely won't win you the game. In the 2 starts for Cleveland, the Browns had 335 yards rushing and 3 TDs as well.

The Chiefs are in the same boat. The issue being with either team is that if the QB has any kind of off night, or even just an average night, it makes it extremely difficult to win games. Every team is stronger in either run/pass. But when your offense is 80% predicated on 1 player, or on the pass, it makes game planning that much easier.

I agree. Just saying that a 4.6 YPC average is not a great indicator of a good RB without context. CMC was the Panther's offense. Singletary is almost an afterthought, so when he does run, he get less focus, which can lead to more yardage.

You can't compare their YPC though, without context. CMC was the focal point of the offense in Carolina, and didn't have much help. They have decent WRs but no one to get them the ball. Singletary is the 3rd-5th option in Buffalo, so teams don't game plan around him.

I don't think people should press charges for every little situation, but I'm fine with this one. If some dude walked up, punched you, and walked away, and you had no "real" injuries, it still warrants punishment. Adams was completely unwarranted in what he did to a guy who had zero to do with him at all. I'm not saying Adams should be punished severely either, but it warrants some punishment. It honestly is probably a way for the guy to press a settlement out of him.

What makes you say that? Just curious.

Harbaugh claimed his interview with Minnesota last year were his last look into the pros. Obviously that could be a bunch of crap, but He claims he is done chasing the NFL.

I don't think you understand how fast 65 truly is, and that most sports cars crumple by design. All I am going by is the reported information, not random speculation.

Everything about your points is speculation. You assume everything about what Garrett did to be on the far wrong side. Everyone else it pointing out that maybe it's not that, or not quite that bad, and you say "prove me wrong" yet have no evidence of what you're saying either.

There is no way to know for sure what was said with the helmet thing and Rudolph. To be clear, nothing Rudolph would have said would make it ok to swing the helmet, but there is no way to say for sure what happened. There is also pictures of Rudolph hitting Garrett in the groin more than once, so he definitely wasn't 100% innocent either. I think you're blowing this WAY out of proportion. He was driving too fast for sure. But 65 in a 45 isn't some insane speed. He wasn't being entirely reckless. He wasn't drunk. Hell, half of NFL fans drive home from games in worse shape than he would be.