Kemp

What a stupid reply. Take a look at the richest people in America, say the top 100. How many are black? The wealthiest 100 households in the United States are wealthier than all the black people in the country combined.

Odd. I could tell if someone was black by third grade. How old were you when you realized it?

Who has the money?

Ah, let's return to the Great America when you could own black people and when women could not vote and were considered chattle. James Madison — who was the main framer, and one of the founding fathers who was most libertarian — makes it very clear that the new constitutional system must be designed so as to insure that the government will, in his words “protect the minority of the opulent against the majority” and bar the way to anything like agrarian reform. The determination was made that America could not allow functioning democracy, since people would use their political power to attack the wealth of the minority of the opulent. Therefore, Madison argues, the country should be placed in the hands of the wealthier set of men, as he put it. You are free to buy whatever you want and ignore whatever you want.

Kettle Black.

I've already answered that in this thread. They are taking it away by closing polling places in black areas and changing the rules of what constitutes legal ID.

How come when judges rule the way you like, they are upholding the Constitution? And when you disagree it's a partisan decision? When was politics not involved in government? Even better, when Trump talks about making America great again, when exactly would he say it was great? No one I have asked has had an answer for that one.

Is the government suppressing the ability to get a driver's license, as well as the right to vote? The Constitution says we all have the right to vote. The Right in some states is trying to take away that right. I thought the Right was all about the Constitution.

All? Worked in Portugal.

Actually, the court ruled it was voter suppression. It's not the other poster's opinion.

The issue is changing the rules as to what constitutes a legal ID.

It still boils down to the same thing. He is absolutely allowed to do what he did and people are absolutely allowed to disagree with him. However, the post of mine you are citing was an answer to a different question. No, it's an example of disproportionate prosecution and incarceration.

I'll bite. Shutting down polls in black neighborhoods, forcing them to travel outrageous distances just to vote, supposedly a right we all have. Gerrymandering. Certain states changing voting laws so as to disproportionately suppress the vote. The following goes into more detail: As of this month, a total of 36 states have passed laws requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls, and 33 of those states will enforce their laws in 2016. A number of the state’s provisions are being challenged in court, and litigation in Texas and North Carolina could determine the courts’ ability to apply the VRA after its vital provisions were gutted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013. North Carolina’s case is scheduled to be heard later this month, and officials in Texas are currently pushing for an appeal after a panel ruled last year that the state’s law is discriminatory. While current voter ID laws are being challenged, other states are considering adding even more restrictions. Pending legislation in Missouri would require voters to present a form of government-issued photo identification at the polls in order to vote, a renewed effort after a state courts struck down a previous voter ID law. During the 2015 legislative session, at least 113 bills that would restrict access to registration and voting were introduced or carried over in 33 states, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Efforts To Make Getting An ID Even HarderWisconsin currently has one of the strictest voter ID laws in the country and requires voters to present a photo ID card. Last week, two Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin began circulating a proposal to prohibit county and town governments from issuing or spending money on photo identification cards. The law would also prohibit IDs issued by cities or villages from being used to vote. Voting advocates say the proposal directly targets a plan recently approved by Milwaukee officials to issue local identification cards to the homeless, undocumented immigrants, and other residents unable to obtain state driver’s licenses or other government-issued ID cards. Other states also limit the types of IDs that can be used to vote in efforts to make it even harder for people to produce an ID. Later this year, a federal appeals court will hear arguments in the American Civil Liberty Union’s case against Wisconsin, which alleges that the rejection of U.S. Veterans Administration ID cards discriminates against homeless veterans and others without photo ID. And last year, a year after enacting a voter ID law, Alabama shuttered 31 driver’s license offices — most of them in rural, impoverished, majority-black counties. Civil rights groups have filed suit, arguing that the change disproportionately affects racial minorities. Limited Voting And Registration HoursMarc Ellis, an attorney for Hillary Clinton, has filed two lawsuits in Ohio and Wisconsin challenging voting restrictions in both states. in Ohio, the litigation targets the elimination of same-day registration and cuts to early voting hours. And in Wisconsin, his lawsuit takes aim at cuts to early voting days and the state’s voter ID provision. Though the Clinton campaign is not connected to the lawsuits, the Democratic candidate has been vocal about the importance of expanding access to the polls. And a North Carolina judge heard arguments last year in a case challenging the state’s cuts to early voting days and its elimination of same-day registration. A decision will be issued at some point this year, and an appeal could end up before the Supreme Court.

At what point in time were these things true?

Most great coaches weren't great players. Maybe Reed will be the exception. I have no idea. Neither does anyone else. McCoy has looked good as a receiver, but 6 carries for 9 yards doesn't strike me as flat out on turbo. Hopefully, once the real games start, he'll look great again. I've just seen too many RBs go bad fast, especially when they have a lot of mileage. I hope he stays healthy and wins the rushing title, but it seems unlikely, to me.

My biggest negative feeling is that McCoy is no longer a special running back. I'm also unclear why Reed will prove to be a great asset. He might turn out to be, but just because you're a great player doesn't mean you'll be a great coach. I would be a lot more confident if our top two draft picks were healthy. My belief is that the Jets are more likely to take the leap forward because of their defensive line, but there is no way to know for sure how it will all play out. Hope for the best, but I'll wait and see before I buy into blind optimism.

Two years?

I'll try again, then. Dareus is ALREADY here. The Bills are forced to deal with his nonsense. There is no way I want to take another risk, that to me is far more likely to go bad then go well. As a free agent at a tiny contract, sure, why not, but I wouldn't give up a thing to get him, including a seventh rounder. I'd rather have Seymour (a 6th rounder) than Gordon, for example. While it's unlikely a 7th rounder will work out, I'd rather take my chances there. Attitude and behavior matters, sometimes as much as skill, like the Mario Williams fiasco of last season. I just don't think it's worth it. Obviously, it's just my opinion, but bad actors tend not to turn it around. Tyrod for Gordon. Get er done.

I get it, even if it's irrelevant. Because to me, there is no right deal for Gordon. Dareus is already our headache. Does that mean we should try and get more headaches? Maybe to you. Not to me.

For the right deal, I would have no qualms trading him. That said, I would trade any player if I thought we were getting the best of it.

I don't believe the Bills traded anything for him. They got a good season from him. He might have another good season left in him. We'll see. Gordon is a multiple offender one puff from removed forever from football. I have nothing against weed, but if you're stupid enough to give up tens of millions twice, you're not worth taking a chance on. The Bills, under Rex, remind me of the Bengals from a few years ago. On the other hand, it's hard to swing a dead cat on the field without hitting someone who might be in jail if not for football.

The point is that if you continue to shop from the dung heap, you shouldn't be surprised with the crap you end up with. If a player makes the same mistake multiple times and you want him on your team, you're not thinking clearly.

Maybe we should also look into Aaron Hernandez. He's electric on AND off the field.

We must trade for him in order to replenish our contingent of aholes, with Karlos gone.

I understand it being a good play if he doesn't fumble. Still unsure how fumbling at the goal line, a foot from a TD, is a good play.