Dan

Just reviewed the kick.... it did indeed hit a Bills player first. Looked like #37. But it hit his the back of his hand as he we going down to block Bruschi. Story of the game I guess.

Fuggin Awesome! Questionale call and no damn official review!

We all know the Bills gave up today. My only question... when? Was it on the first drive of the game? Or was it on the plane trip over?

Second week in a row the Bills D has let the entire 4th quarter go on a single drive that they HAD to get a quick stop. Great.

I can't in any way see this as a "fear" of something that may happen. It's almost a foregone conclusion that the Refs will at one or more points during the game make a call, or non call, that will be favorable to the Pats*. It happens almost every Sunday.

Could part of the running game and offensive problem as a whole be that we haven't had any consistency on the Offensive line? Have we played more than 2 consecutive games with the same 5 starters on the Oline? When is that ever a good thing?

Well crapity crap crap.

That's where we'll have to agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that, right. I do agree that now it's needed; however, initially I'm less convinced. Certainly, many of the reasons cited for going to war - WMDs, Saddam's strong army, terrorists in Iraq (at the time the war began) - didn't pan out to be true.

And therein lies the rub and I would say was just one of the fundamental differences between McCain and Obama. How important is a free and stable Iraq? How is the best way to ensure a free and stable Iraq? A few tough questions that I won't begin to suggest that I have the answer to. However, much as I did when Bush pushed for war with Iraq, I'll have to trust the new President to make the right decision. As it turns out, IMO, Bush was wrong to push us into war and it's led us as a nation down a long and bad road. Hopefully, Obama uses better judgment and makes a better decision. I suspect we won't know for many years.

I don't dispute that. And, yes, it should be up to the generals. However, you have to keep in mind that that generals have a narrow view of the world. As they should. They're primary is and should be the war. The President has to take into consideration how that war fits into the overall world view, world economy, etc. So, he can't just go completely , 100% on the recommendations of the genearals. So, my point is that for any candidate to say "this" is what I'll do and then never waiver from that statement is reckless.

You say as long as it takes. I say indefinitely. Same difference. I prefer language more along the line of what Obama was saying towards the end of the campaign. We'll leave as soon as we can in responsible manner; with consultation from the generals in command. The fact that he changed his tone along the way gives me hope that he will listen to the generals on the ground and take their advice into consideration. But, we all have to remember, as President he has to take into consideration much more than just their opinion.

No problem. My comments were directed at you, more just taking your initial statement and expanding on it.

Just as reckless as it is to state that we'll be there indefinitely. Both - all - candidates make promises and statements during a campaign that become invalid the moment they start getting intelligence briefings that they never saw before.

Your post should end there. Regardless of your viewpoint; a teacher - any adult - shouldn't tell a child your dad could be gone forever. Do you really want that? Its one thing to generate discussion and try to get kids involved. Its something else to try and influence them with cherry picked arguments they can't fully understand.

I think that's why it was so blown up in the first place. She billed herself as a candidate for Joe6Pack, small town, I'm just like you, I have your problems, I'm losing money, we're in this together - and then it comes out her wardrobe cost more than most Joe6Packs make in 2 or 3 years. That's the rub there.

IMO - she couldn't have done the actual shopping. I could see her telling some staffer to go to store X and buy me something and maybe she did that to excess. But, even then, don't they have campaign directors and handlers and such that do most of that stuff? I find it odd that a person maintaining the schedule that one of the candidates had could be that involved in something as relatively mundane as clothes shopping. So, I'd think it was more of a larger campaign management issue. If you believe some of the reports that people have said she often ignored her handlers (what a bad word) and threw tantrums, then who knows what happened. But, again IMO, this is all a sidetrack as to why McCain lost the election. If this is what the RNC is worried about, they're in worse shape than anyone might imagine.

Not saying any of this is true, but... saw a report last night that said she had her staffers shopping for her. Much of it on their personal credit cards which they were then to be reimbursed for. IMO, this is all blown way out of proportion. McCain lost. His campaign was less than ideal. People are looking to save their ass. They need a scapegoat for all the problems of the campaign. For whatever reason (maybe some of it's based on fact) they picked Palin. Now they pour it on and try to save jobs for themselves.

It's Nov. 6. Unless my calculator and calendar are broken, 4 weeks is Dec. 6. That would be prior to the Denver or NE* game. Either way, even if he doesn't come back until the NE* game, does it matter? If that's a game we have to win to make the playoffs, wouldn't it be better to have Schobel playing?

Or early December. Wouldn't it be nice to have one of our better pass rushers and run stoppers available if we're making a playoff push?

That point might have validity if you or anyone would concede that Clinton effectively fought the war against terror for the remaining 7 years of his presidency, as jkx2 alluded to. So, do you acknowledge that Clinton did a great job by preventing further terrorist attacks?

I find it hard sometimes to not feel a little sorry for Mrs. Palin. She struck me as someone plucked from obscurity because she fit a specific profile or image the party wanted. They expected her to fall in line and perform on command. Eventually when it was determined that she was incapable or unwilling to comply; the party seemed to turn on her, marginalize her, and now ship her back to Alaskan obscurity. It will be really interesting to see what else comes out and what else she may or may not do. Historically and politically its all quite fascinating.

I deal with the media quite often. Most people don't want to, whether it be fear of talking in public or saying something that they twist and misquote. My advice is always the same: The news stations are going to put something on TV every day and night - they have to. If you talk to them, you have some control over the content. If you don't, they're gonna put up whatever they can scramble to make up. So would you rather have your message out there or someone else's? Other than picking a candidate that had little to no knowledge of national or international issues, this was McCain's biggest problem, IMO. By refusing to let her interview, the news stations had to make up their own stories and that's exactly what they did. How the RNC thought they could nominate a woman for VP (historical in its own right) and not have her give a million interviews is beyond me. Huge mistake by McCain.

What's this cable thing you speak of?

Just voted in Mississippi... talk about a vote not counting. It took us about 10minutes. They had pretty snazzy electronic machines; you put in a card, then it walked you through the voted, then printed your ballot after it was cast. Much fancier than I would have thought.

Could you please stop being rational? We're supposed to be firing people, switching team allegiances, rioting in the streets kinda stuff. It kinda ruins all that when you clearly demonstrate our offense and defense aren't the worst in the league.