KurtGodel77

During the playoff drought, a common pattern was this: the Bills would use a first round pick on a DB or RB. That DB or RB would go first-contract-and-out, at which point the front office would use another first round pick on his replacement. Early picks were being spent like water on DBs and RBs, and that came at the direct expense of the offensive line. In the early 2000s Bill Belichick referred to the Bills' offensive line as "horse manure," and that assessment has remained accurate for most years since then. Poor offensive line play has seriously harmed both the running and passing games for most of the past two decades. During that time, BillfromNYC became known for two things. 1) His "A few thoughts about the game (in no particular order)" thread, created after each game. Virgil has since taken over that task. 2) His desire to see the Bills use early picks on the offensive line, not on DBs or RBs. Out of everyone here, BillfromNYC was considered the most focused on the offensive line.

New York A day before the start of the "legal tampering" period, Brandon Beane received an unexpected text. "You are temporarily removed from control over the Buffalo Bills." Beane did some digging. The text was not a hoax. McDermott had received an identical message. "It's not just about the loss of control," Beane explained. "It's about implementing a specific plan. I know nothing about this 'BillfromNYC.' How do I know he's willing to do what it will take to keep Josh Allen upright?" Beane need not have worried. BillfromNYC hit the ground running, signing six offensive linemen. "And there's room for more!" Bill shouted, while slamming his fist down onto the table. Bill also signed a defensive back. "Contrary to popular belief, I never said the defensive secondary was irrelevant," BillfromNYC explained, "I said its importance was secondary. The offensive line is six times as important. Signing one defensive back for every six offensive linemen seemed about right." Critics have accused BillfromNYC of being obsessed about the offensive line. He doesn't seem bothered. "They think I'm obsessed now? he asked, seeming a little incredulous. "Those critics have no idea what actual obsession looks like. But, if I'm still in control of this team during the draft, I'll be happy to show them!" he chuckled. Most Bills fans are supportive of the move. One Bills fan had the following to say, "Our offensive line was a complete joke last year. I want to see what Josh Allen can do, when given a clean pocket from which to work. Kudos to BillfromNYC for giving him that." Such praise makes BillfromNYC uncomfortable. "I have a lot more work to do on the offensive line, before I'll consider the result remotely close to satisfactory," he said. "I've gotten things started, but that's all I've done!"

I'm assuming you know that in the U.S., anti-slavery laws make it illegal for one human being to own another. That makes you an outlaw, because never has one human being owned another more thoroughly than you've owned Bungee Jumper. Congratulations.

You are calling someone else a troll? That's rich.

Interesting slip of the tongue, you fool. You've just admitted to being a liberal Democrat. Hence the "we."

The Tennessee Valley Authority would be a good start. There are a number of messed-up and expensive agricultural programs. And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure if you really started digging, you could find a lot of stuff that needs to go.

The $865,000 question is just for one township. If this was the sole example of a town wasting its taxpayers' money, the event would have the relative lack of importance you seem to ascribe. Instead, it's a symptom of a general disease--government waste at the local, state, and federal levels. Allocations for the Iraq War may be another symptom. If you look at the history of the Roman Empire, government money was allocated better during the days of the Empire's strength than it was in the days of decline. Corruption, graft, etc. inevitably lead to weakness and decay.

I think it's more a question of people saying no to neocon Republicans than yes to Democrats.

The real irony is that you a) advocated genocide, b) continuously tried to put the Nazi label on me.

I gather Vermont used to be a conservative, old school, Calvin Coolidge kind of state. Then a bunch of people from NYC moved in, and now look!

You are correct in implying that we shouldn't place blind faith in the German government's words. Nor should we place blind faith in the words of FDR's administration, nor in the British government's statements. For example, FDR joined the British in claiming that Hitler had plans to take over the U.S. via Mexico. Those alleged plans were a complete fabrication and a deliberate lie. Hitler's plans involved the U.S. staying neutral and isolationist. Later, Allied governments would falsely claim that the Nazis had made lampshades out of human skin. Those allegations were passed along as fact by historians such as Shirer, but have been dismissed as propaganda by more recent mainstream historians. When a given government makes atrocity allegations against an enemy, those allegations should neither be automatically accepted nor rejected. They should be carefully examined by impartial historians. For example, Germany accused the Soviet Union of murdering the Polish officer corps. After having removed eastern Poland from Soviet control, the German government allowed independent Western experts to examine the mass graves the Soviets had left behind. Based on the forensic evidence they examined, the Western experts concluded the German government's accusation was true: the Soviets had clearly engaged in mass murder against the Poles. What makes the atrocity allegations against the Polish government interesting to me is that Hitler himself believed these allegations. Does that mean we should accept them at face value? No. But it's enough to make me want to know more.

Okay, you win. They liked me for more than just my good looks.

It was for my good looks.

I know of no context in which it's appropriate to wax eloquent on the merits of genocide, or to celebrate terrorist attacks, or to express hatred of Americans. The "genocide works" quote was in reference to the treatment he recommended for the Lebanese. The other three quotes reflect his views about the next terrorist attack. The sentiments expressed are morally repugnant on their own, and this repugnance is in no way diminished by the surrounding context. Especially in the Lebanese example, he was recommending actual policy to be directed against actual people.

It's funny you should mention the USSR; because that nation was so pivotal to the foreign policies of various nations between the wars. Between 1918 and 1921, a war took place between Poland and the Soviet Union. The British did nothing at all to help Poland due in part to pressure from the Trades Union Congress. The French sent a token force of a few hundred troops. In 1920 it appeared Poland would lose the war, as the Soviets had reached the Polish capital of Warsaw. Both Britain and France advised Poland to surrender. Poland's experience clearly demonstrates that in the period between the wars, neither Britain nor France could be relied on to meaningfully resist Soviet expansionism. Fortunately for the nations of Eastern and Central Europe, Poland didn't need any real help from its supposed Western allies to successfully defend itself from Soviet invasion. It managed to win a decisive victory near its capital, and the next year the two nations signed a peace treaty. The Soviets postponed their expansion plans in order to consolidate their hold over Russia, and to build up their military and industrial might. The Soviet delay created a breathing spell for the nations of Eastern and Central Europe. But while the shadow of Soviet expansionism had temporarily receded, it didn't go away. Lenin believed the Soviet Union couldn't survive unless Germany was communist. Stalin likewise envisioned a communist Germany, and toward the end of his life began planning to launch WWIII to achieve his objective. Nor is it clear that Soviet armies would have halted their march once they got to France. In 1920, Poland was able to fight off the Soviets by itself because the Soviet military was weak, and the nation was still in a state of civil war. This situation wouldn't last forever. By about 1944, the Soviets would have the world's strongest military; a status they more or less would maintain at least until the 1980s. A strong Germany was absolutely essential to counter Soviet expansionism. But under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was only allowed a token military. What would have happened had Germany not broken that treaty? It's quite possible the Soviets would have begun their expansion in the mid to late 1930s, conquering nations such as Poland, Romania, Hungary, etc. It's doubtful either Britain or France would have responded more strongly to these invasions in the 1930s than they did to the invasion of Poland in 1920. Germany would have been the next nation invaded, and with only a token military its fate would have been certain. Hitler hoped to conquer the Soviet Union before the Soviets had completed their militarization and industrialization. Such a victory would save Germany from Soviet invasion, it would allow Germany to farm enough to feed itself, it would destroy communism, and it would prevent Germany from ever again being subjected to the type of humiliating foreign occupation it had endured after WWI. The destruction of the Soviet Union was the central goal of Hitler's foreign policy. However, France signed a defensive alliance with the Soviet Union. It's not clear to me why France would want to take the Soviet side in its cold war against Germany. Long-term Soviet foreign policy called for global conquest. Long-term German foreign policy merely called for the conquest of the Soviet Union. Moreover, the Soviet Union was a much larger nation than Germany, both geographically and by population size. For this reason, an expansionist Soviet Union was more fearsome than an expansionist Germany. Three times during the 20th century, the U.S. rescued France from its own mistakes. The first time was WWI; which France should have handled differently. The second time was WWII, which France had a lot to do with. And the third time was the U.S. decision to protect France from the fact that it got what it wanted: utter Soviet domination over Germany. Had the U.S. not ended its isolationism, the Soviet victory against Germany in WWII would have resulted in the Soviet conquest of France as well.