f8ta1ity54

OL depth was the biggest issue. 2nd string Center is bad. I think they faired pretty well. I cant see too many teams playing short handed in hot&humid conditions playing much better.

We dont have the corners who can cover on blitzes right now.

lets wait to see what the injury report looks like.

Hasn't been an issue here. He's only 30. He's got another 3-4 years. Centers can play a long time if they stay healthy. We'll see. He was missed today, that's for sure.

He's only missed 3 games.

Muffed snap lead to not getting FG at the end of the half.

If Morse wasnt out I think they win that game. Whenever Morse is out, it should be Bates moving to center. IDGAF if it causes line shuffling. There were so many bad snaps and botched exchanges. I would have changed that immediately.

Idk how he was able to return.

If I had that kind of money I'd do weird shit without care as well.

so why was he seeking a pardon? This shouldn't be a shocking development for anyone. rich and powerful people rarely see consequences.

No. You cant just claim that the biden administration wants to do regime change in russia because of trump without evidence. This is complete bullshit. Ukraine's borders are internationally recognized....That doesnt give russia the right to annex. Demonstrate how the US is trying to do a regime change in Russia right now. what does the word retaliatory mean to you? "Russian propaganda has painted the Ukrainian state as Nazi and fascist ever since Russian special forces first entered Ukraine in 2014, annexing the Crimea and fomenting the conflict in the Donbas, which has smoldered for eight long years. It was propaganda in 2014. It remains propaganda today." "We strongly reject the Russian government’s cynical abuse of the term genocide, the memory of World War II and the Holocaust, and the equation of the Ukrainian state with the Nazi regime to justify its unprovoked aggression. This rhetoric is factually wrong, morally repugnant and deeply offensive to the memory of millions of victims of Nazism and those who courageously fought against it, including Russian and Ukrainian soldiers of the Red Army." This is just a bunch of scholars who completely disagree with you. Statement on the War in Ukraine by Scholars of Genocide, Nazism and World War II (jewishjournal.com) lol so support your argument with evidence. Where did I claim "the us is on the side of angels"? Do you just love knocking down strawmen? No he didn't. the fucking quote is right there. what does retaliatory mean again? LOL just remember, you are the guy taking every word Carlson says as gospel and yet he has argued IN COURT that no reasonable person should take him seriously.

Exactly.

"Biden's advisors wanted a total regime change war against Russia apparently to avenge the election of Donald Trump which they believed Putin was responsible for and they were willing to fight to the last Ukrainian to get it" Source? "in other words who cares what the ukrainians want America and the UK demand total war with Russia regime change war with Russia and of course the ukrainians caught the middle had no choice but to concede so days later the peace negotiations fell apart" The russian's were demanding that a sovereign nation not join NATO or the EU, that they need to acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognize Lugansk and Donetsk as independent states. Why should Ukraine have to do that? "a war designed to topple Vladimir Putin just like we toppled Saddam Hussein" Russia started an offensive war. This wasn't a plan by the Biden administration. "this week president zielinski of Ukraine gave an interview to the left-wing newspaper the guardian and in it he casually called for the United States to Nuke Vladimir Putin quote the other nuclear States need to say very firmly that as soon as Russia even thinks of carrying out nuclear strikes on foreign territory in this case the territory of Ukraine there will be swift retaliatory nuclear strikes to destroy the nuclear launch sites in Russia parsed that and we're quoting as soon as Russia even thinks of carrying out nuclear strikes meaning before Russia actually launches missiles the U.S needs to launch nuclear weapons against Russia in other words we need to launch nuclear weapons now" Thats not what is being said at all. This is pure propaganda. this is the exact quote by zelensky: "The other nuclear states need to say very firmly that as soon as Russia even thinks of carrying out nuclear strikes on foreign territory—in this case the territory of Ukraine—there will be swift retaliatory nuclear strikes to destroy the nuclear launch sites in Russia," What Zelensky is saying is that the west should warn russia that a nuclear strike on Ukraine will be met with force. "The United States is ready to pursue critical arms control measures. A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought," -Joe Biden "it's not a bluff says Putin who we are told is insane so we probably should take it seriously he is after all running a country with the largest nuclear Arsenal on the planet and he's talking about using nuclear weapons if the West continues to threaten Russia's territorial integrity it's a conditional warning and of course threatening Russia's territorial integrity was never part of the deal" Thats an interesting way to put it. Considering that Russia is trying to reclaim its historical borders from a sovereign nation. Putin made those blood and soil arguments in a 45 minute rant before he INVADED. "for they're pushing for toppling the government of Russia and once again hoping that everything will be fine" No they aren't. This is straight russian propaganda. "Ukraine's government called for an immediate nuclear attack on Russia an attack that would without question result in the immediate destruction of New York Washington D.C Los Angeles the deaths of tens of millions of Americans that's what he just said" No he fucking didnt. Fear monger much? Holy fuck Thats only 5:55 seconds into the video. I dont need to see any more to know that this is russian propaganda. This is absolute garbage.

The Presidential Election Reform Act, which aims to prevent another January 6-style insurrection, passed with the support of every House Democrat present—but only nine Republicans. House Democrats on Wednesday took aim at the overwhelming majority of their Republican colleagues in the lower chamber who voted against proposed legislation that aims to prevent another attempt to use Congress to subvert presidential elections. "It comes as no surprise that only nine Republicans voted to ensure the integrity of the electoral vote count." The Presidential Election Reform Act, written by Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), seeks to prevent presidents from manipulating the Electoral Count Act like former President Donald Trump attempted to do as part of his effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power to President Joe Biden. The measure passed by a vote of 229-203, with every House Democrat present voting in favor. Only nine House Republicans joined them. All nine are leaving Congress after this term, either because they lost primary challenges or are retiring. In addition to Cheney, they are Reps. Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio), Jamie Herrera Beutler (Wash.), Chris Jacobs (N.Y.), John Katko (N.Y.), Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), Peter Meijer (Mich.), Tom Rice (S.C.), and Fred Upton (Mich.). "To all those who oppose this legislation, I ask you, how could anyone vote against free and fair elections—the cornerstone of our constitution?" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)—who leads a party that has repeatedly fought to keep more progressive challengers off ballots and out of debates across the country—said Wednesday on the House floor. "How could anyone vote against our founders' vision: placing power in the hands of the people?" she added. "How could anyone vote against their own constituents, allowing radical politicians to rip away their say in our democracy?" In a swipe at Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Rep. Marc Pocan (D-Wis.) tweeted that the newly passed bill "eliminates loopholes insurrectionists tried to exploit on January 6th—even for those who only spent 'a couple seconds' trying to overthrow democracy." Speaking of his 203 GOP colleagues who voted against the bill, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), chair of the House Rules Committee, told Politico that "the idea that they're siding with insurrectionists, they're siding with people who are trying to undermine our democracy is really disgusting." Politico reports that some House Republicans could be open to supporting a Senate version of the legislation introduced in July by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), which might include provisions of the lower chamber's bill. Manchin's office said Wednesday that his bill has 10 Republican co-sponsors—enough GOP votes for filibuster-free passage.

"Instead of voting for the DISCLOSE Act and cracking down on the dark money in our democracy, Republicans blocked it," said Sen. Patty Murray. "Shameful." Proponents of democracy responded with disgust Thursday after Senate Republicans filibustered the popular DISCLOSE Act, which seeks to expose the super-wealthy donors who are spending unlimited amounts of undisclosed money to ensure that the U.S. government advances their interests at the expense of the vast majority. As Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), author of the defeated legislation, said in a Wednesday floor speech, the bill's goal is to prevent corporations and billionaires from using dark money loopholes to "spew bile and slime" into the nation's political system. "Republicans heeded the wishes of dark money donors today, but the fight to pass this bill isn't over." After all 49 of his GOP colleagues in attendance voted to prevent debate on the legislation endorsed by President Joe Biden, Whitehouse released a statement slamming right-wing lawmakers for fighting to preserve "dark money's poisonous influence over American democracy." "Today, Senate Republicans stood in lockstep with their megadonors and secretive special interests to protect the most corrupting force in American politics—dark money," said Whitehouse, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The American people are fed up with dark money influence campaigns that rig their government against them and stymie their priorities." Whitehouse was far from alone in condemning the GOP. "Once again, Senate Republicans sided with special interests and dark money—and against honest and transparent political debate," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) tweeted. "Instead of voting for the DISCLOSE Act and cracking down on the dark money in our democracy, Republicans blocked it. Shameful." Michael Sozan, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said in a statement that "at a time when the guardrails of our democracy are undergoing a severe stress test, it's lamentable that the Senate minority continues to give corporations, wealthy special interests, and foreign entities the ability to secretly spend vast amounts of money to influence election outcomes." Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center, added that the failure "to advance, or even allow debate on, the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act... disappoints those of us who have been fighting against the influence of secret spending." "More importantly," he continued, "it deprives voters of important information about who is attempting to influence their vote and allows corruption to prevail by permitting special interests to continue anonymously rigging the system in their favor." "It is past time for Congress to enact legislation that bolsters transparency requirements and fulfills voters' right to know who is spending on election influence—a right that has repeatedly been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, even as the court has struck down other campaign finance and election-related laws," said Potter. The ability of the nation's wealthiest individuals to translate their disproportionate economic power into political clout has increased exponentially since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision eliminated effective limits on campaign contributions. As Whitehouse's office noted, "Dark money in particular has skyrocketed despite the Supreme Court, by an 8 to 1 margin in Citizens United, upholding disclosure requirements as a means for citizens and shareholders to hold elected officials and corporate spenders accountable." According to the Rhode Island Democrat, "Dark money political spending went from under $5 million in 2006 to more than $1 billion in 2020. Billionaire political spending increased by a factor of 70, from $17 million for the 2008 election to $1.2 billion for 2020." Among other things, the DISCLOSE Act would require "organizations spending money in elections—including super PACs and 501(c)(4) dark money groups—to promptly disclose donors who have given $10,000 or more during an election cycle," his office explained. "In addition to election disclosure requirements, the bill requires groups that spend money on ads supporting or opposing judicial nominees to disclose their donors." "The DISCLOSE Act would shine a light on special interest spending to neutralize its toxic effect, giving Americans' voices a chance to be heard," said Whitehouse. "Republicans heeded the wishes of dark money donors today, but the fight to pass this bill isn't over." Given the GOP's unified opposition to the legislation, passing it requires that Senate Democrats abolish the upper chamber's 60-vote filibuster rule—a move corporate Democrats like Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have refused to support. "Holding a vote on the DISCLOSE Act without pushing to end the filibuster highlights the fundamental flaw with Democrats in Washington: Their rhetoric and warnings about dark money have always been spot-on, but they have failed to take the actions necessary to actually stop the flow of secret cash distorting and corrupting American politics," The Lever reported earlier this week. "Meanwhile, the party has become increasingly reliant on these same dark pools of cash to help elect more Democratic lawmakers."

Nice. Tucker Carlson is the go to source on Russian propaganda.

No. We know for sure the Buffalo Bills exist.

Who needs Beasley when you can just go to Diggs every time?

He wanted to be traded in the off season. Unrestricted free agent in 2023.

Would be perfect for our offense. Good vision, can catch, breaks tackles, and makes plays. Just saying.

@Philly'sFinest loves documentaries like this! I'm sure its at the top of his queue!

Lol which one?

Dude. Has any cancelation personally affected your life in any meaningful way?

But he's never going to concede to that argument anyway. He'll say it was a FBI orchestrated tourist visit, or whatever garbage the talking point is this week. When you debunk that, he'll move to another point. He's just a fascist and wants the fascists to have power. He will say anything even if it contradicts other things he says. It's all about that white christian power over every one of us impure heathens.