1984Echoes

Or are exhausted from the MAGA ****show.

😉 Actually... not as worked up as you're thinking... I've said in multiple game threads the same thing: **** up the O-Line and we **** up our season. That's not a worked up statement... I think that's a flat fact. We're not winning games with a dominating defense. And... Goff is great and the running backs and St Brown are great but... Goff falls apart if our O-Line fails him, and we lose our running game if our O-Line is not opening up such great lanes, and blocking at the second level, for them... So I think it's a simple statement that just rings as true: **** up our O-Line and we **** our season. So I'm keying on that this offseason. Even above our crappy CB's and pass rush. On that end... I'm just going to assume that Holmes signs FA's and/ or drafts guys to help out our pass-rush and pass coverage. But I'm interested in what Holmes is going to do with the Offensive Line because I think that's flying under the radar and there are more serious issues there than what most are thinking about. (Vatai out, Glasgow a UFA, same with Jonah Jackson, Ragnow's injuries accumulating, and maybe getting worse, Decker gave up 8 sacks last year... is he still effective at 30 next year on the last year of his contract? I would assume yes but... I don't really know.) So I wonder what Holmes is thinking about keeping this line healthy, who he wants short-term versus long term. Who he is willing to invest in versus move on from. Sewell is the only absolute guarantee... to me. To that end... I've seen media or fans claim Jonah is going to get a top of the market contract... whilst educated guesses by more analytical sources (PFF, etc.) do not have him pegged at the top, but at much more reasonable rates. So if someone is claiming Jonah will be unaffordable because he's getting a top of the market deal... not being worked up at all but, instead, I believe I am stating a simple flat fact: I think that is BS. Not to be mean... But I'm going with PFF's estimates and not fan/media speculation.

Times again citing the 11,000+ but I am, missing that last piece... https://www.timesofisrael.com/commander-2-troops-killed-in-gaza-blast-raising-ground-operation-death-toll-to-232/

I'm trying to get back to that 14,000... I've posted links to 11,000+ and am trying to re-find that last piece...

Wikipedia is citing Israeli sources with 10,000+ militants killed as of Feb 1, 2024: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–Hamas_war

This is not on the number of Hamas fighters killed or civilian casualties, but, rather... Compares what the US faced in Iraq and Syria battles, what the difficulties IDF is facing in Gaza... and why there is so much destruction in Gaza trying to root out Hamas fighters. It's a good read. By Foreign Policy.com: https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/02/14/gaza-war-israel-civilian-deaths-urban-warfare-hamas/

This is the AP but it's incomplete. I've seen fuller reports than this.. this is citing ONLY Hamas fighters killed in Gaza after Oct 7th. It is NOT referencing Hamas fighters ON Oct 7th (IDF estimated that at 1,000) nor is it publishing IDF's estimate of "runners" (NON-Combatants running ammo and weapons in Hamas tunnels - IDF estimate of 3,000). But it's at least a start... I'll be back later with more: https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-02-12-2024-4ade5edf47711c6b0c13d1380980de2b

I don't save my searches/ articles so let me get back to you on this... I know I can find the reports or media articles on this. I've read several but... But I'm multi-tasking so it'll take at least a few minutes not including all other stuff that I am doing... But I will get you some links.

I'm looking at 3B as a problem... Until proven otherwise. If someone takes ownership over the position that's great. If/ when Jung comes up this season and if he can take ownership of the 3B spot... great. It'll be "classified" as a problem area for the Tigers... until proven otherwise. I don't mind waiting/ watching to see what happens this season.

I believe their top level numbers. Whatever the number of deaths and injuries are... What I DON'T believe is their refusal to report militant casualties. In effect, 100% deaths are civilian = propaganda. Just my 2 cents to add to this...

"SO much offensive zone puck possession..." THAT's what we need more of. Guys who can get ahold of the puck, and NOT lose it to the other team... Actually, both on offense as well as defense. Stop turning the puck over, IOW.

Bring it on. Let's add more fuel to the Fire Trump!!! campaign. He needs to be fired from politics in every way imaginable.

Which is propaganda. They do that on purpose. Under Hamas orders. "Do NOT report combatant casualties. Report them ALL as civilians." For propaganda purposes. Do you not realize this? I'm just asking...

And just so I'm not being misunderstood (sorry for beating a dead horse here...): I am FINE with the 30,000. I am NOT arguing against the 30,000. What I am arguing against is Hamas Health Ministry with ZERO militant deaths. The IDF number is NOT total deaths: It is COMBATANT (militant) deaths ONLY. If the 14,000 is disputable because (A) It's only an estimate (B) difficult at best to verify (C) IDF has an agenda. It is DEFINITELY not 0 militant deaths. Common sense: Several sources estimated Hamas with 30 battalions at approximately 36K soldiers (including US Intelligence, not just Israeli intelligence, IDF, mainstream media, etc.). 26 of those battalions are no longer operable. The last 4 are in Rafah. Out of the 26 Hamas battalions that the IDF has rendered "inoperable"... How many of those 30,000 or so Hamas militants that are no longer "operable", are actual deaths? OUT of the 30,000 dead civilians that the Health Ministry is reporting?

I accept the Hamas Health Ministry's number of dead. 30,000 or whatever the latest number is. I REJECT that there are ZERO militant deaths in that number. IDF says 14,000... they put out DAILY reports, which are easy to find. Maybe that number is somewhere in between 0 and 14,000. So here's a question, friend-to-friend: How many militant deaths out of those 30,000 do you believe there are? Just as a WAG.

Also: The IDF is ROUTINELY reporting their numbers. Mainstream media is generally not reporting them. All you have to do is look however, if you want to find them. Also: Gaza Ministry of Health (Hamas)... does NOT report militant deaths. It reports ALL deaths, as civilian. That is NOT good faith, it is Propaganda. The "good faith" that you are quoting, is a good faith effort to report DEATHS. I believe they are accurate in that number. I have never said otherwise. What I am disputing is their characterization of those deaths being 100% civilian. That is NOT good faith. And they will NEVER report militant deaths. All Gazan deaths are civilian deaths (per Hamas), and that's it. Can IDF #'s be verified? No. Are they rounded numbers? Yes. Are Gazan (Hamas) militant deaths closer to ZERO, as you are stating... out of the 30,000 that the Health Ministry is reporting? Or 14,000 militant deaths out of the 30,000. Or somewhere in between. Lastly: I'm using COMMON SENSE. ZERO militant deaths out of 30,000...? Is that reasonable? Shouldn't common sense tell you that militant deaths can NOT be ZERO. You and Tater seem to be having problems using common sense for some reason... Let me know when you guys catch on to this...

So you believe there are 30,000 dead Gazan civilians. And 0 Hamas militant dead. That's what Hamas is reporting. Do I have that correct?

New cyber capability that could destroy U.S. financial systems... or similar? Just a guess...

As long as this is true and Holmes picks up whoever this guy may be (draft OR free agent...) and the player proves out this idea... I'm good with it.

I added what I thought was the critical statement and bolded it. Plus bolded your all-caps comment because between those two... those are the key points.

Sinwar. Right? The Hamas terrorist refusing to surrender and using 100 Israeli hostages to surround and protect himself from Israel's wrath?

Yes... But I think somewhat more reliable than Hamas. Their estimates are: 1,000 Hamas killed during the Oct 7 invasion. 10,000 Hamas killed in Israel's response. And an estimated 3,000 kids that were ammunition and weapons "runners" for Hamas in the tunnels. So obviously those are very round numbers and hard to verify, and subject to some wide variances. But... Hamas: Does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. They've come under large criticism for that. By stating "28,000 civilians killed"... is an attempt at propaganda... but noone believes 100% of those killed were ALL civilians. So they've broken it down further but: There were 30 Hamas Battalions in Gaza with roughly 36,000 Hamas fighters. Again, round numbers. But roughly 1,000-1,200 soldiers per Hamas battalion. Israel has "destroyed" 26 of those battalions, only 4 remain in Rafah. That doesn't state who was killed versus who was injured versus who just ran away... But it does give some indication of what Israel has accomplished so far in its campaign to destroy Hamas military. The Gaza Ministry of Health (Hamas), looks ridiculous saying 500 of the 28,500 killed were Hamas military when 30,000 or so of their soldiers are no longer combat-capable. One way or the other. The 14,000 may not be EXACT. But it's a HELL of a lot closer to reality.

More trustworthy than Hamas terrorists and liars. And it's not even close.

If Establishment Republicans are looking for a home... I don't know where that is... What do moderate Pubs to right of center Indies want? Cutting more taxes for the top 1%? To your point, that doesn't seem to fly. A balanced budget? I could be on board with that. But not on a militant Constitutional Amendment basis, but, more along the lines of a George HW Bush or Clinton 1992 basis. A compromise between left and right that includes tax cuts in certain areas but increases in others, with an overall net increase in (tax) revenues. Spending cuts in certain areas but increases where needed and an overall net decrease in spending... But that's not a powerful platform position. Any Dem or moderate Republican can run on a balanced budget. But with the current Trumpublican Party closed off to moderates, they would need to have more than that. Libertarian? Fiscally conservative but socially liberal? I think that's a good place to be... but not on the Libertarian basis of their militant "strip-the-government-down-to-nothing". And the Party s rife with jokers instead of real politico types. But swap their militant fiscal to moderate balanced budget position and stock it with Christie-Manchin-similar types and it maybe becomes more palatable to moderate Republicans. But is that what they want? What do they want? What platform can they run on? As you've stated... that party has basically run out of ideas...

IDF.