joey greco

The correct answer is 3.5

Businesses are sitting on this money because of the uncertainty the administration has created in the marketplace. It's more than just waiting to see how Obamacare shakes out-the BP shakedown and screwing of GM shareholders has indicated a willingness to ignore contracts and hundreds of years of contract law in favor of political expediency. They have undermined the essential achievement of Anglo-American commerce and the reason for its success in less than 2 years. The creation of these assurances was Hamilton's greatest achievement, and allowed the tremendous growth the U.S. achieved afterwards. As long as the administration is seen as willing to violate contracts and that bedrock of market certainty by fiat corporations will be very hesitant to invest funds and will continue to hang onto these warchests as long as possible, and the economy will continue to plod. It's psychology and a fear of government intervention more than anything that's holding things up at this point.

This is wrong in so many ways. First of all, the document above is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The idea that you are not bound by the legal agreements of your ancestors (in one way or another, all the states had ratifying conventions and all subsequent states agreed to be bound by the Constitution as a condition of entry to the Union) is a fascistic argument. Of course, the founders didn't take all the power they could have. Washington could have become a military dictator, and most expected him to. George III himself said that if he didn't, that Washington would be the greatest man in the world. Washington didn't. They didn't anticipate or desire the degree of democracy that developed, but they did allow a greater degree of freedom than they had to, or that existed anywhere else in the history of mankind to that point. Finally, we are supposed to have a contractual government such as you state to desire. That is the government that the founders designed. The fact that we don't owes much to the progressives, who don't believe that written contracts don't mean anything. That's the basis of the idea of the "living" constitution. If people can change the meaning of written documents to anything they wish to, rather than what is written, contractual government no longer exists. What we have now is arbitrary government, according to what judges wish to be, government by fiat. Thank your friends on the left for that.

That's about the worst explanation of the rise of fascism that I've ever seen. Fascism was a movement of the working classes for crissakes, not a reaction to their growing power. That passage in your definition is wholly(and probably willfully) ignorant of history. That's not to mention the sly use of the word "liberal" values. Fascism did not disparage what we would think of today as liberal policies (universal health care, welfare, nanny-statism, etc.), but rather classical liberal values such as individual and natural rights, separation of powers, and the rule of law. Fascism and communism have very few differences. They're basically conjoined twins separated at adolescence who became bitter enemies fighting over the same territory. The idea that they inhabit opposite ends of any ideological or philosophical spectrum is farcical and has no grounding in reality. That scale is simply a propaganda tool created by Stalin and is the rhetorical equivalent of Bush-bad, as in fascist=bad, therefore anything we do is anti-fascist.

Well we'd lose the marvelous Ricardo Clark if we were to play a competent midfielder. Why that garbage keeps appearing in the lineup when there are so many better options I'll never understand. The England goal was directly attributable to him too. Torres is the guy that should have been there all tournament.

I've always wondered what happened to frayed. And I miss Gavin's posts. I sometimes check the police blotter after home games to see if NJSue finally followed through on her beer-dumping threat.

And the Bills got kudos when they got Ko Simpson later than the "experts" said he should have been drafted. The only thing worth less than a Jerry Sullivan column is a draft day grade published hours after the draft ends.

Not Campbell or McCoy. Campbell's a workout warrior with little college production and a bad attitude, McCoy will just keep us from actually getting a good qb next draft

uggh

+1. They'll have a high pick and can get a true franchise QB next year. Picking one this year means passing next year most likely. Get Brown or Cody

Campbell doesn't have the resume Nix said was important to them. OT would be Brown

brown or cody, hopefully no campbell or QB

Agreed. Brown is a guy they think they can coach, and has all the natural gifts you look for in a LT. He's another upside/natural ability pick. Maybe they actually believe that they have a staff of great teachers/motivators and can just take the most gifted athletes and coach them up.

No, the opposite applies in FA. The draft is a crapshoot. You never know what you're really getting. So take the most talented guy. Drafting "needs" means you're passing on improving your overall team talent, and have a good chance that you'll still be trying to fill that need next year. FA you know what the guy can do as a pro. You're paying a premium. You only pay that premium to fill specific needs.

RB is a filled hole. Filled with a 30 year old, and a guy who does lots of stupid things and is 1 stupid thing from a year-long suspension. RB isn't nearly as set as you're making out here. Besides that, he fills a huge need, a critical one-playmaker. We've lacked one outside of WR (who depends on having a competent QB, LT, and offensive coordinator to be effective). This guy can score in multiple ways, and doesn't need much more than a narrow seam to do it.

No matter who they took at 9 that would be true. This is a bad team changing systems on both sides of the ball. Reaching for a player to fill a "need" for next year instead of taking BPA would be incredibly stupid.

Don't agree. They know they aren't winning a damn thing next year. Get players, see what next year's draft and FA bring. This team is not in a position to draft for need right now, and doing so would only ensure continued mediocrity. Take a step back if necessary to take some forward for a change instead of treading water.

Hopefully they'll continue to just take the BPA regardless of position. This team needs talent, and is going to be terrible this season anyway. Stupid to reach for a guy because it's a "need" right now. This team could use upgrades at every position.

If you're counting on a rookie to start before the draft (particularly at a cornerstone position) then you are counting on being a single digit draft choice team next year. Just sayin....

Depends. Are there any other FA's with serious injury, age, or personal issues? If so, then I think that the Bills are not done signing free agents. If your question is whether or not the Bills will sign any FA without serious questions about their injury status, ability, or age, then the answer is no.

That's the Big Lie, the one that should never be heard again on this board. He was exactly the same before and after that hit. A crappy quarterback who didn't anticipate, didn't see the field and plays developing properly. You can't cite statistics to back up the claim-they're the same pre-and post-hit. Fall back on the record...then look who those wins were against. He was even terrible when the Bills were managing to squeak out wins against awful teams. He's a never-was, get over it.

Appetite was the pinnacle of 80's rock. It was a level above everything else. I think Appetite is a great album and I listened to it a ton even though I really hate that genre as a whole. It's made for radio, and damn near perfect for what it is. It's fluff. Incredibly well done fluff, but fluff. Nevermind marked the death of that hair band genre, and changed the future course of rock. It's not as radio-friendly, but far more influential. To make a somewhat unfair analogy, it's like comparing Saturday Night Fever to London Calling. SNF was huge, got lots of radio play, it's listenable. It was the pinnacle of disco, the 70's equivalent of hair bands. London Calling was a far more influential, and yes, better record.

+500 This is what people were actually saying. Not just to change some faces, but bring in some proven people who have fixed franchises in the past. You know, like Ralph promised.

Nice straw man you've got there. I said that no team is as unsettled or untalented on the offensive line as the Bills. Would you really like to argue that point, you know, the one I actually made, rather than the one you made up? Is Incognito far and away more talented than anyone else that the Bills could bring in? Did they or did they not create yet another hole on a team full of them? I would argue that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what Incognito's value is to anybody else, but rather what his value is to the Bills. I would argue that because of the particulars of their situation, that Incognito is more valuable to the Bills than he might be to another team. The interest he draws from anyone else is completely !@#$ing irrelevant. Roll your eyes all you want. The apologists for this walking abortion of a franchise need to pick an argument and stick with it. The Bills overpaid for garbage. They let a very talented offensive lineman go so that they didn't have to pay him. It's indefensible.

Wait, I just read a whole bunch of posts saying what a great front office we have because we didn't overpay to sign anyone who is actually good. Now you tell me that it doesn't matter that they overpay for garbage?