Mr.TaterSalad

We are selling F-15's to the State of Israel, which is run by Netanyahu and his Likud government. The Israeli Prime Minister acts as a defacto Commander in Chief and as a result this is Netanyahu's war that the IDF is waging. By selling F-15's to Netanyahu's government, during the midst of a war they are waging, that is the United States showing its support for both the State of Israel being lead by Netanyahu and the war being also lead by Netanyahu. You cannot divorce Netanyahu from Israel, most especially when he is trying an authoritarian power grab to become a dictator and end democratic government in that country. You can no more divorce him from Israel than you could Trump from this country when he attempted to install a dictatorship here on January 6th.

He's been WR #3 in Cincinnati since Chase got there. So I would wonder if he's looking for WR #2 money and target share in what may be his final chance at a big-ish or long term contract given that he's 29. Is he holding out on what the market is offering him or is the market not offering him a deal right now because of his contractual demands? I'm certain he will cost us more in years and dollars than Reynolds would have to resign because he's a better player. I don't know that he's a significant upgrade though at this point in his career over Reynolds. He hasn't been a thousand yard receiver in over 4 seasons now and has put up similar numbers as Reynolds, albeit getting WR 3 target shares with the Bengals. I think I'd be down for a 1-2 year deal with him at the right price. I might even be willing to overpay for him as a rental on a one year deal because it wouldn't hinder our long term cap flexibility and would allow us to not have to draft a replacement for Reynolds high in this years draft. What does he even want contractually and would Brad be willing to give him what he wants? That I'm obviously not sure of. This is allegedly a deep WR draft though, so there may be a guy who ends up being a WR and BPA on the Lions board and gets picked regardless of Boyd or another WR being signed or not.

They asked the question over on Pride of Detroit so I figured I'd ask it here. What's the consensus around here on signing Tyler Boyd? Do people want him and what do you think it would cost to get him? Is he going to want more money/years than Holmes is willing to pay out?

I agree that Witherspoon was the guy they wanted and they would have stayed and picked him had be not been taken by Seattle. My question for Holmes would have been/still is what they saw in Campbell over Joey Porter Jr. I like Campbell as a player and wanted the Lions to take a serious look at him were to be there in the second round. But given their glaring need a CB, I really was hoping for one of Porter Jr. or Gonzalez at the time.

We don't treat him like he isn't. We're set to sell Jewish Trump 50 F-15 fighter jets in a deal expected to be worth more than $18 billion. Next to Zelenskyy in Ukraine, we give Jewish Trump's regime the most money in foreign aid. If he ain't a cherished ally, we sure aren't acting like he isn't. Maybe don't sell the Likud regime 50 F-15 fighter jets?

Bibi is a good guy, he's our ally. Our most cherished ally in fact.

Would this regime wait and see with a supremely talented, elite-level player like a Sauce or a Ray Lewis type? As much as they preach culture around here, I don't know that they'd put up with this from any player, no matter their abilities on the field.

But is he a culture fit? So what if he can hit 64 yard FGs. Does he fit their culture. If Bates can hit them from 64 yards, but Badgley can hit them from 32 yards and fits their culture, you know who they're choosing LOL.

https://www.publicpower.org/public-power/stats-and-facts#:~:text=Public power utilities also deliver,for customers of private utilities. Studies show that public utilities are more reliable and more cost effective for consumers. The DTE monopoly needs to be broken with a public utility.

I fully believe Holmes feels he can find another Brock Wright in the draft. I'd be shocked if he matched that.

Cam Sutton is the only one that comes to mind.

If it was just her lone allegation, I'd likely be more skeptical than I am of the allegation. But when you couple what she alleged Clinton did to her, rape, with what he did or is alleged to have done to other women like Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Monica Lewinsky, I begin to see a pattern. I think there are lots of great, useful, campaign surrogates that Joe Biden has to chose from. Including a former President in Barack Obama. There are dozens and dozens of federal, state, and locally elected surrogates he could use as well. I don't care in this instance what Clinton did on policy. I'm not even bringing up his grifts as Governor (Whitewater, cattle source future trades) or President (1996 campaign finance concerns). I do care about the moral fiber of the people representing and raising money for our candidate Joe Biden. Clinton isn't morally a good person and shouldn't be out there representing Biden or any Democrat. I want Biden to succeed and he doesn't need Bill Clinton to be successful and win re-election. Nor does he need George W. Bush. I've already blown this thread up enough with my Clinton talk. I won't weaponize my comments to create any further mass destruction in this thread by commenting on Bush being a potential surrogate.

I know you care that Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll. It's my belief that if one (you, me, anyone) cares about Ms. Carroll than they should show concern for Juanita Broadrick and what Clinton allegedly did to her. There are many people out there who could be good, useful, surrogates and fundraisers for Joe Biden. Bill Clinton shouldn't be one of them given his alleged baggage.

Then stop using him on the campaign trail and tell him to go home. It's really that simple. Joe Biden and Biden's political team could easily tell Clinton to not be out there on the campaign trail for him.

Do you think it is a bad look though for Democrats to both embrace the allegations from and story of E. Jean Carroll while not acknowledging all the women Clinton allegedly violated while in positions of power?

Acknowledging the plight of women who were violated by a man in a position of power, first as Attorney General, then as Governor, then as President, is not a purity contest. Acknowledging alleged victims of rape and sexual misconduct is not a purity contest. Acknowledging the plight of a 20 year old intern who was taken advantage of by the President of the United State and made to do sexual favors with a cigar is not a purity contest. We can win this election without looking hypocritical. We can win it without trotting out a man who has himself allegedly violated women. If one of our core arguments against Trump is acknowledging what he did to E. Jean Carroll, then I just don't believe putting Bill Clinton out there on the campaign trail is the right look for us. If Bill Clinton never made another public appearance for Joe Biden again it wouldn't sway this election away from Biden. Clinton is a bad person, who, allegedly, did bad things to women. That bothers me and I don't care to see him out on the campaign trail for Democrats.

What's wrong with acknowledging the plight of women that Bill Clinton allegedly took advantage of in a position of power and violated? How about we just leave Bill Clinton at home and don't trot an alleged sexual deviant and rapist out in the public eye anymore? If one of our core arguments as Democrats against Donald Trump is that he is a convicted rapist then I don't think we should used an alleged rapist on the campaign trail stumping for the guy we want in Joe Biden. It makes us look hypocritical and bad to embrace a guy who has rape and sexual misconduct allegations against him while criticizing the other guy.

Forget Clinton's terrible record on policy, in the wake of Me Too I have a real hard time trotting Bill Clinton out there still in the public spotlight and embracing him. We believe Dr. Blasey Ford and E. Jean Carrol but we dismiss Paula Jones, Juanita Broadrick, and Kathleen Willey?

You're the one running around talking about the left embracing violence homie. What's more an embrace of violence than to send people off to war. If you know of something more violent than an exercise where one group of people attempt to kill another group of people let me know.

The other issue I have with regards to this Gaza debate is one around "the left" embracing violence without an acknowledgment of how the center and center left embraced violence for almost a decade in the 2000s after 9/11. Anyone remember invading Iraq? Anyone remember how many of the centrist Democratic politicians told us we had to invade Iraq otherwise we'd risk a mushroom cloud in NYC or a dirty bomb or attacks with WMDs? Anyone remember centrists being upset when we invaded Iraq and as a result, hundreds-of-thousands of Iraqi civilians were butchered and thousands of American troops lost their lives? Anyone remember centrist politicians speaking out against the US use of chemical weapons against civilians when our military used white phosphorous bombs in Fallujah? So while we can sit here and criticize actions some on the left for their embrace of violence, where is the criticism for the embrace of the worse kind of violence from centrists and center-left types who were so blood thirsty for war (or too cowardly to oppose Bush) when we invaded Iraq? What's more violent than a war? I'd say war is the ultimate example of embracing violence. Just look at all the violent warmongers on the Iraq War Senate roll call vote. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm

Same Old Wings

This is pathetic tonight. I didn't expect a win, but given that we're back at relatively full strength, I did expect a reasonably competitive effort. The playoffs are almost certainly not a thing we can look forward to now.

Enjoy a variety of very good Alt Country tunes that I have been enjoying lately. . .

Were you looking for Caller 9 at 734-998-1071?

I agree that there are scummy, anti-Semitic people on the left who are using this conflict as a means to end the State of Israel. These same people wouldn't themselves want to live under the rule of Hamas or the PLO. They wouldn't support the way Hamas treats LGBTQ individuals nor the fact that Hamas doesn't allow for reproductive freedom or abortion rights. I think there are people on the left who shamefully conflate Hamas with being some sort of freedom fighting group and that is unequivocally wrong. Hamas as a political entity and as an operating organization is both barbaric and oppressive towards its own people and the people of Israel. It's also wrong to try in anyway to deny or justify the terrorist attacks on October 7th. There are people on the left who do and defend some or all of this and that is very concerning itself. I don't ever believe that violence should beget violence. So anyone on the left using violence or intimidation as a tactic to protest Israeli actions, Jewish people, Jewish historical and holy sites, is flat out disgusting and wrong. Defaming or minimalizing the horrific legacy of the holocaust in any way, shape, or form is also disgusting and disgraceful. So I am angry, disheartened, and deeply sadden to see videos like what MB shared where holocaust survivors are being bullied, harassed, and intimated. That said, Israel wants to have the best of both worlds too. Jewish Trump wants to sit here and play the victim and use the October 7th terrorist attacks as a license to attack Hamas, Gaza, and Palestinian people with little restraint. He wants to use it as an excuse to rule Palestinians with an iron fist and not allow their own independent statehood. He and is Likud regime also want you to accept or outright ignore the years of Israeli settler violence and the violent, oppressive occupation and apartheid that has been occurring in Gaza long before October 7th. Furthermore, I see liberals and center-left types defending Israel and trying to separate the argument of supporting Israel from supporting its current regime. They are one and the same and cannot be separated. Weather we want to admit it or not, Israel is not much of a true, liberal democracy anymore. It sucks to say that, but the Likud majority, led by Jewish Trump, is in the process of dismantling democracy in Israel and itself using violence and corrupting the political process to hold onto power. With Jewish Trump at the helm, they are quickly trending towards where Hungary is now under Viktor Orban and are increasingly becoming an illiberal democracy. So when I see people saying that we need to stand up for the Middle East's only democratic government, I ask which government that is. Because standing up for Israel, as it is now, is not standing up for democracy. Until Netanyahu is gone and their political system can sort itself back out and get on a different path, there isn't much of a democracy to defend anymore. I am troubled by many people and events on both sides of this issue.