Juror#8

Strangely enough, this is the best "bad QB play" that I've seen in Buffalo in a while. Usually it was the Edwards or Losman or Fitz patented 16-31 184 yards 1 td 1 int. He was flustered by the D, forced some plays, and Sammy and the other wrs performed about as well as a flaccid penis. Either way, we win that game and it would have been called a "yeoman's effort."

Thankfully Carolina did us a favor by taking Newton at #1 so we didn't make the mistake of drafting him at #3. Those were some entertaining threads.

Expected us to win but didn't expect this type of dismantling of a good team. I see a 13-14 win Bills team on the field. My prediction going into the season was 11 wins and a wildcard. **** feels good.

That was a beautiful freakin pass. Great lay out by Harvin to pull it in.

Haven't seen this posted yet. If it's, or if it should be merged with existing topic, my apologies ... http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/13541230/rex-ryan-decide-starting-quarterback-sunday-not-make-decision-public Not earth-shattering news.

I'd like to hear more about your side; what I've read up until this point seems generic and incomplete. I think Tasker asked the salient question: who fills that void, that vacuum, in the instance of the US extricating itself from global affairs? As you've probably heard said, power, like nature, loathes a vacuum. Someone will need to step in and fill that space left by the only nation willing and capable enough to ensure that the world doesn't devolve into unmitigated global chaos. What nation is strong enough, solvent enough, independent enough, transparent enough and perfectly geographically placed enough to occupy that space? China? Russia? You refer to instances of global intervention that didn't bear fruit. Fair enough. However I see those instances as more a crises of logistical unpreparedness than the philosophy behind the action itself being wrong. And since you can't properly prove a negative who is to say what would have happened if we would not have intervened in Vietnam, or displaced Saddam? Was the "sell" wrong and misguided? Sure. Were there logistical and strategic challenges of profound moment? Yup. But was the philosophy of action in those instances wrong? Were we able to repel a greater overall threat relative to the harm that we would have ultimately realized through inaction? It could be argued that we did. The danger of American inattentiveness, now, is likely a unstoppably large middle eastern hegemony and an Imperialist Russia that we can't trick into arms-building themselves into insolvency. The next president, amongst other things, needs to understand the necessity of strategic interventionism. This is not the time for a ham-handed equivocator or a "dove." This is not the time for a Jimmy Carter or a Lyndon Johnson or a RON Paul. I, personally, and with respect to foreign policy only, think that Hillary will throw some punches and be the type of interventionist that we need.

Aren't Cruz and Paul fairly different on the foreign policy front - with Paul believing in libertarian isolationism, and Cruz being fully willing to commit to military intervention, like, say, in Iran?

My preferred foreign policy stance is "interventionist." I believe that there are countless things happening at any point internationally that affect America or American interests. We can't assume that standing idly in some laissez faire foreign policy context will maintain our safety and security by default. Hitler was emboldened by the decided inaction of Britain, France, and the United States during WW2. He used Democracy to consolidate power and then abolished the very institution by which he ascended to power. In response, the international community said, "sure, whatever." Germans started building their military against the admonishments of the Versailles treaty; the international community thought "eh, no big deal." The Germans started encroaching on Czechoslovakia, the "Sudetenland," and declared that it was unjustly taken from them after the first 'Great War"; the international community (except for the Czechs) capitulated. Then the Germans threatened Poland ... the Allies said they would go to war if Germany invaded; Germany said "fukkkk it, they keep rolling over; so why not try this aggression thing again?" So they go after Poland. Britain and France declare a fake war and nary a shot is fired for months - basically nothing transpires, Hitler realizes it was for show, and he becomes even more emboldened... I'm not saying that there are any "Hitler-like" international actors today. But I am saying that that historical development of escalating international conflict could happen again in a more contemporary content if we are glib, reactive, or plain isolationist - or if we simply don't recognize the broader implications of profoundly bad actors even in ostensibly sovereign states. Hillary is simply the most Hawkish of the current candidate field - D or R. She has often times been way out of step with her Denocratic counterparts. You'd be well served to research how she proposed to assist the Syrian Rebels against al-Assads regime. And her opinions on a recent surge into Afghanistan. And just look at her foreign policy voting record vis a vis the Democratic establishment. Heck, contrast her record and rhetoric against the Republicans running. She is a hawk's hawk. Close your eyes, forget her name, and you'll almost think someone is telling you about Duncan Hunter. And when it comes to foreign policy, that's what I like to hear. I don't give a **** about Benghazi and all that jazz - I want someone in office who will happily mix it up and keep the fight away from our borders. With regard to border security, I'm for anyone who is willing to put up a wall, and use a combination of force and modern technology to secure it.

I'd be interested to know which are the three most important issues for you in the upcoming presidential election cycle. I'm going to take it one step further and tell you who I feel best represents my ideal stance on those issues: 1. Border security/Immigration (Donald Trump/Rick Santorum) 2. Foreign Policy (Hillary Clinton) 3. Energy and Oil (?)

Hmmm ... Well ... Hmmm ... Look, Sowell makes a good point. I've been reading the guy since grad school (incidentally he didn't reply to a request for a quote to buttress my thesis in a my Constitutional Law seminar paper so I shouldn't agree with **** the man has to say). But with that said, he misses some critical points and draws some false conclusions - namely, "'welfare' is bad." I've discussed ad infinitum on this site why I think that is a wrong-headed thesis. Welfare shouldn't be a lifestyle, nor should it be an income stream or a retirement option; but it is well placed as a bridge between unemployment and employment and it assuages what would naturally be the tendency of some to commit acts of criminal conduct in order to have basic resource needs for them or their families in the instances where society abandons any concern or interest in their survival or well being. Those states which restrict the length of time that public assistance is available, and mandate some recompense after the individual is gainfully employed, I agree with. Those states that allow competent and able-bodied citizens unfettered access to public assistance resources - money, housing, food - in omne tempus, I don't agree with. But the institution needs to exist in some capacity for temporary sustenance and rejuvination. Sowell's "all or nothing" postulation misses that. He also seems to forget that "black-on-black" crime pre-1960 was largely do to statistically greater "white-on-black" crime. The majority of black folks were galvanized in some effort against that; and the inner cities were bastionsof social thought centers and community organizations. It was when black folks accomplished their "cause" and the collective "cause" was replaced with an individualized need to survive by clawing for the few opportunities that they were qualified for (due to a meritocratic infrastructure that set a goal post that was the "same" for everyone [read: driven by academic achievement] though there was a massive disparity with regard to the availability and quality of academic resources that was ostensibly the leveling paradigm upon which to judge everyone equally) that you see this "ghettoism" and community crime circumscribed by poverty. Think of it like this, you're in a race that you've never been allowed to run. Some smart people get together and say, "we are going to put the finish line in the same place for everyone." It's just that some people start the race 200 meters further ahead always. The equality of the "finish line" doesn't matter then. Sowell misses that too.

I'm not carrying Sharpton's water; however I was enjoying a little satire and channeling my inner literary dilettante.

I think that any historian will tell you that Reagan's speech and some underlying "fear of Reagan's retribution" had nothing to do with those hostages being freed. The mechanics around that were in the works for months and under Carter. With that said, notice that I didn't say that Carter wasn't an idiot, because he was. The mission to extract the hostages was ill planned and coordinated. It was a good idea, but just poorly conceived. That falls under the category of "if it would have been successful, Carter would have been awesome; because it failed he is a blundering idiot." Incidentally, that rationale is the same reason that Obama deserves credit for the bin Laden raid. Because if it would have failed he would have been mercilessly pilloried (by you and most here at PPP) so give him credit because things went well. Otherwise you're moving the goalpost and articulating a game that you'll never allow him to win. So back to my point, Reagan, though an idiot himself, was just less of an idiot than Carter. He was still intelletually numb, and dim-witted. In fact, in my opinion, there were only a handful of presidents that weren't ridiculously unprepared or ineffective in the last 100 years: FDR Teddy Roosevelt Bill Clinton Richard Nixon JFK George HW Bush Eisenhower ****, I'd give a Nixon/Clinton, Clinton/Nixon ticket a lifetime appointment if it were possible (Watergate/Lewinsky scandal notwithstanding). To me that scandal bs just demonstrates passion, hustle and virility. I'll take that any day over unbridled incompetence and fundamental inability to lead, message, and coalesce - which have been the hallmarks of the W and Barry administrations, respectively.

... they heard a frantic knock on the door at around midnight. When they opened it, a fair skinned woman of about 22, holding only brass knuckles and a flashlight said, in a peculiarly calm Australian accent, "you all need to come with me" ...

I'm black Irish.

Ah but I never said that you were.

Not you too Doc. You're !@#$ing up my rather creative effort at type-casting.

Baby momma is driving me crazy but the babies are the best. Best thing that ever happened to me. Watching my son chew on the remote control and periodically yell at me because I won't give him any Lorna Doones. My daughter is crashed on my girlfriend's lap - comfortably in her Buffalo Bills pajamas. My girlfriend thinks I'm researching a case but I'm stealthily posting on a message board. No complaints here bro.

Letter to Iran: "Just be glad Reagan's gone. Cause you'd be shakin in your boots if he werent. His Inaugural speech scared Iran so much that they let those hostages go. Don't make us break out the heavy duty smelling salts cause you'll be sorry." Signed, Delusional

You need to wait for all the facts to come out. "Murder" is a strong word and what's the motive? By all accounts these two didn't know one another. And since any potential racial component is the boogey man of the liberal media, there is no way that this could satisfy the legal definition of "murder." What you're probably looking at is a different classification "homicide" - undoubtedly justified - because Scott insulted Slager's sense of civility and couth by driving a mid 90s Mercedes with only one hand on the steering wheel and calling him a "honky" under his breath.

If he was white, then this thread would blow up around the lack of attention paid to it in the national media (which I never understood because it's interest groups that trumpet these stories so that they receive and retain media attention - and since there are no comparable "white" interest group to the minority factions, then that begins to explain that [not quite] "liberal bias" disconnect that is used as a convenient explanation for the ostensible disparity in coverage). Al Sharpton's name would come up 20 times. But in all seriousness, I'll sum up the intrinsic feeling of many in PPP - The cop was probably in the right. The photo of a 50 year old man with a graying goatee is a simple subterfuge by the agenda-driven national media to make Walter Scott appear old and fragile. In reality he is a lot younger and more sprightly that the video of him being shot in the back and dying made him seem. By the way, the video was photoshopped. It wasn't daylight out; it was nighttime and the cop thought that Scott's green t-shirt was an H&K USP45 tactical (with the threaded barrel). Additionally, there was no way that officer Slager had a racist bone in his body. Slager's family owned slaves in SC. Slager's family fed and sheltered those slaves. So he couldn't have killed a black man because that would be antithetical to his predisposed 'sustenance and shelter for blacks' trait. Plus whites don't have racial animus. That stopped when Obama was elected. And those who have held onto racial animus only do so because there are black people on welfare. And even those whites were born prior to brown v board. And they wouldn't kill a black person as a result of any racial animus. Whites don't kill back people, guns do; guns bought illegally from blacks. Keep in mind, though, that other blacks kill blacks all the time. Just ask LABillzfan. He knows the inner city ethos better than most. And anyone who thinks that Scott is really dead should wait until all the facts come out. There is a chance that Slager had a legitimate apprehension about his safety and well being because Scott's busted taillight could have been purposefully fashioned that way so that someone in the trunk could lay there with a rifle and pick off people in gas stations al la Boyd and Mohammad. And so Slager was only performing a public service. Just think about it, in eight shots, he eliminated a likely parasite of the public assistance system, stopped a serial shooter, kept another black man out of prison who would have killed Scott anyway in that ritualistic black on black violence, saved his undoubtedly white 'baby mama' from continued domestic violence and the unbridled propagation of mixed race babies, convinced the SC legislature to adopt a "stand your ground law" so that no one like Slager will ever have to deal with the indignity of accusation again, put a smile on LA's curmudgeonly face, and let the whole world know that any black person wearing green after St. Patrick's day will be met with lethal exaction. What did I miss?

I sort of like Mitt Romney. He reminds me of the "Tato Skins" commercial.

The Willy Wonka thing threw me off so I'm confused as to whether this is an effort to make jolly of the global warming theorists or just a random musing unrelated to anything remotely political. If you are making a political point about global warming, and note that I don't have the scientific or ecological bona fides to opine in any coherent way around this issue, didn't they say that this was one of the hottest summers on record - looking at 2014 as a whole? It was hot as $h!t here in the mid Atlantic but I'll admit to not doing any aggregate temp data. http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/09/18/earth-hottest-summer-climate/15823745/ And before you attack the article, note: 1. I haven't read it. I just cut and paste the first thing that came up in Google to reference what I recall hearing from about 6 months ago. 2. I'm not sure if whatever data that was used to support the thesis of this article has been peer reviewed, or will stand up to scrutiny within the scientific community. It's in the USA today so I imagine that it's not predicated on "junk science" at least.

Reasonable minds can disagree on this, however my understanding is she was a Hill staffer. When I was a grunt on the Hill getting paid good taxpayer dollars to open constituent mail and summarize recurring concerns, we were told over and over again that we represented the institution of the Congress, the state, the party, and the congressman himself. We were admonished about our actions in and around the watering holes in DC, and we were held to a social media policy. Again, reasonable minds can disagree but she should have known better. When I was in DC, there is no way that I would have taken to Facebook saying anything about anyone of my colleagues or a public political figure. I was always led to believe that, whether fairly or not, my sentiment, if inartfully expressed, would be attributed to my boss; and that truism would necessitate my expeditious discharge from employment.

I appreciate that 3rd. And likewise I've always respected both your opinion and your dogged persistence in support of or in critiquing an issue. Ive basically stayed out of current events and politics for a year or so. It was one of those things that I had to do for myself. Too many late nights drunk at the old hawk n dove arguing about sh#t that I didn't truly care about, with people who I couldn't relate to, to impress women who didn't look half as good when they were naked and I was sober. Had to completely get away from politics and current affairs for a while and focus on fixing some things. But it's good to be back.

Hmmmmmmmm some interesting points you make. I'm nterested to see how it plays out.