Dan

Yes. You're being overly negative.

Hell, I'd be happy if we could wait till the end of the second game ..in the regular season.. before passing judgment, let alone the end of the season. The decade of futility has definitely taken its toll on the fan base.

Very much what I was thinking, as well. It's been a couple weeks now since Evans was traded and I'd suggest that we still don't know who's going to fill his shoes. No one seems to be stepping up - granted Parish and D. Nelson have been on the sidelines for the most part. But, IMO, its crucial that we find someone to take Evans place. I think he wanted to see exactly what the line was good at and what they weren't as well. Turns out blocking just isn't their strong suit. But, I'm confident he'll game plan around that, just as he did last season. As I recall, we all had these exact some discussions about the QB getting killed last August. But, then Fitz got in and Gaile devised game plans to mask the weaknesses and somehow the offense wasn't our worst unit.

The answer, I think, is yes. From my viewing, Bell was beaten several different ways on several different plays. He definitely had a bad night. With that said, I don't recall much help at all shifted to his side; and Miller and Dumerville are Denver's 2 best pass rushers. I think this whole notion of not game planning and playing base O and D throughout is interesting. What I saw was the first offensive and defensive series looking pretty good for Buffalo. Offensively, we moved the ball down the field pretty well - until Fitz missed on several passes resulting in the FG. Defensively, we shut them down pretty well. After that, however, things got progressively worse. Could it be the Bills stayed in their base formations and tried specific plays, regardless of down and distance. On the flip side, the Broncos made adjustments and took advantage of the down and distance. ? That's kinda what I saw, or how I interpreted the game. Yes, its better to see 9 sacks and the offensive moving in sync. But, its also beneficial to see the the weaknesses and strengths of your team so you can properly prepare for each opponent. However, I think you gotta balance all that out with trying to build confidence in your players as well; hence, I'm hoping they prepare a little better for next week's game and get some points on the board.

I haven't seen the game yet (will be watching today on the NFL replay); however, that's the number that concerns me the most. At some point, the offense has to wake up and score a touchdown. Between the Offensive Line problems and trading Evans, it seems they just can't get anything going. Everyone scores in the preseason, it seems, but the Bills. Why is that? I suppose we all go back to pretending this week didn't happen and next week we'll see a good team. Problem is... we're in some bad groundhog day movie and next week never seems to arrive. .

I gotta say... your thinking in this thread is so far out there I can only guess you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. And if you really haven't voted for any presidential candidate.. then all your ranting and raving about Obama or any other guy is hypocritical... to say the least. Voting for a losing candidate is not wasting a vote and it is most certainly not equivalent to not voting at all. Your right to vote in an election is the foundation of our entire country. If you don't like the candidates running...write a candidate's name in. He'll, right your own name in. But, to sit back...not partake in the process, other than to complain about it all, and then claim to somehow be better than the rest of us because you don't partake in the process is pretty well the definition of being an ass. You may not like someone else's vote, or their opinion, or the process. Fine. So get up and do something about it....vote for someone to change it all or run for office yourself and change it all. Otherwise, your just wasting all our time because you don't even have the balls to pick a side... whichever side that may be.

You don't make the team better by cutting/trading proven and established starters just because there's a 4th round pick that might develop into a good player. Add in the fact that the player still has plenty of good, productive years left in the tank and any trade/cut would be idiotic. IMO it doesn't matter if he's the number 1 or 2 guy. For ex, how much worse did Cinci's offense get when they traded whosyourmama? Bottom Line.... any talk of trading Lee Evans - one of our best WRs - is idiotic.

Hogboy or GreenWeenie or some other such derivation, I believe.

I do. And, yes, we are hiring and expanding. I haven't opened a new office this year, but we opened 2 last year. I'll be traveling next week looking to expand into another region. For me.... my business grows and shrinks based on the amont of work I do and has little to do with potentially new taxes, laws, or regulations.

Actually no. I don't watch MSNBC at all. You say that there is no plan for these cuts; yet in a post after this you readily admit that all the talking has been going on behind closed doors. So, how do you know there's no specific plan for the cuts? You don't. I'm not saying every deal of every cut is in place. I'm not in the meetings. But, I find it hard to believe that anyone, including our politicians, are dumb enough to meet for as long as these people have been and not have any specific ideas - for cuts and taxes. Pretty much how I'd summarize this whole mess. I've heard or read plenty of speculation - certainly some cuts.. many cuts are down the road. But, certainly some cuts would be much sooner. Just as many of the tax loopholes would be closed down the road as well. Does congress ever pass a bill that has immediate effects?

I won't disagree much at all. Its hard to imagine a time when congress people or the President acted for the best interest of all and not just their reelections. Yes, the Dems... I think... are playing the game better right now. But they've dug a hole. If the Repubs would give in to some of the tax loophole cuts....they'd have the Dems in a position to make those cuts. Problem is they are unwilling to call the bluff.

The gang of six have been meeting for weeks, if not months. Both sides in Congress have been meeting, they've had a week's worth of meetings in the WH. I think we can all assume that they've all come up with about 2-4 trillion in cuts. Unless we want to assume that they've been talking sports for all these hour's and day's of meetings. The problem always seems to be when the Dems talk about closing the tax loopholes and such. That''s when the GOP walks out. I have to agree with RI and what many polls show the majority of Americans want.... a compromise. We need massive cuts along with revenue increases. The most influential members on one side seems to be ok with that; the other side has flat refused to compromise in any way.

The whole thing works if they have a replay official in the booth that does the review. If the Ref on the field has to wait for the specific footage to be cued up, run over to a designated replay camera and then come out to announce something.... it'll be horribly slow and inefficient. As with most things, the idea itself isn't necessarily bad, but the execution could make it bad.

Not my liberal friends, but your point remains true. Certainly both liberals and conservatives are equally at fault for the immaturity and lack of progress in this country due to it.

And this childish, immature attitude of "he said it first" is doing as much harm to the country as anything. I guess kids just aren't taught that 2 wrongs don't make a right anymore... among other things.

I'll have to disagree with you on this one. To this one poster... the ball did mean something. It wasn't a useless. The guy has been going to hundreds of games, spanning the course of his life all the while hoping to catch a foul ball. After 33 years, he finally does. And he's supposed to just give it to some kid that's been to a couple of games? Just because he's a kid? I'd disagree. Now, as others have pointed out; had he stole the ball from the kid or in some way used his size to out gain the kid... then yeah that's be dickish. But, from his account, that wasn't the case.

Same here. I've used iAntiVirus on my MacBook for about 2 years and have zero complaints. Of course, it's never found a virus, but then again I've never had a virus of any type, on the computer. So, in the end, I really don't know how good it is at finding and deleting viral threats. But, in the end, it doesn't take up many resources, seems to just run and be out of the way, and gives me a little peace of mind thinking I have antivirus installed. In short, I'd recommend it, as well.

I know a little about ticks.... there's several things to consider. First, if the tick was on for about 36hours; there's more than enough time to transmit any disease agents including those causing Lyme Disease. For Lyme Disease it generally takes about 24 hrs minimum for the bacteria to be transmitted. Of course, it can occur sooner; it can also take much longer. Another thing to consider is the species of tick. Some ticks cause much more of an allergic reaction. For example, the lone star tick, cause a really itchy red bump that's much worse than most ticks. However, they don't occur everywhere. So, it depends upon where you live as to whether you may have encountered them or not. You didn't by any chance save the tick, did you? If so, send a pic or two and I'll do my best to identify it. Different ticks transmit different diseases; so its always helpful to know which one's ya got. Another thing is... sometimes people in their zeal to make sure they get all the tick they dig a little too deep and it gets little infected/irritated. So, it's very likely that's all you're seeing. The big thing to look for is any behavioral changes in your pet. The rash associated with Lyme Disease isn't always seen. So, I wouldn't go by that. But, if the infection is passed you'll often see a change in behavior: lethargy, different eating habits, etc. that indicate she's sick. I'd keep an eye on that. The sooner you seek treatment the better; but you have antibiotic treatments will work effectively if received within the first month or so.

This is what I've been thinking since this speech. Obama just made one hell of a ballsy and dumb move. He's just alienated and pissed off a huge group of voters and fund raising source. That's the type of move you see in a second term guy, not someone who's gearing up for re-election. I honestly can't see how he thinks he can "win" in this scenario. Israel and and the Palestinians will never agree to compromise, especially on borders. So, you come out and publicly push an idea that has an almost zero chance of playing out.... just so you can piss of every jewish voter in the country. Makes no sense. The only thing I can possibly think that's going through his head is that he's thinking its better to try and make all the Arab countries stronger allies than to further alienate them. Israel almost has to be our ally, otherwise they're on their own and no way I can see them doing that. So, its all political posturing to strengthen ties with the arab countries? Huge risky move though.

How many people has Johhny Cash sung about killin? Delia's Gone openly calls for shooting your girlfriend!

No. You're just the one spouting off obnoxious retorts that are a far better representation of verbal diarrhea than my original question. Yes my question was somewhat leading; however, it's really simple and shouldn't have brought out the response it has if someone has a rational answer. Joe Minor brought up a point, that's been brought up here and with pundits elsewhere; namely, that if we end the tax breaks the oil companies will raise the price of gas to compensate. Hence, we should continue giving them huge tax breaks. My question is simply to point out a fundamental flaw in that line of reasoning. All businesses pass all costs on to the end consumer. So, why don't we give all businesses big tax breaks? And that's not even to mention that while these companies have had this tax break; they've steadily raised the price of their goods. So, how much good is it really doing to help me at the pump?

Is this more verbal diarrhea getting thrown all over this great thread? I'm confused. (no... i'm joking) I don't pretend to understand this healthcare waiver business. But, I'd guess it's something in the law that allows them to file for waivers; they get reviewed and in some cases granted. If I don't want to pay my employees health care; I can file for a waiver as well (I assume) and hopefully get out of it. However, if I want to get a nice reduction in my taxes, I don't know of any waivers that I can fill out requesting that I not pay all my taxes. In reference to your first set of questions: yes. no. no. But, yes there may be plenty of reasons to give big oil specific tax breaks. I'm not suggesting they pay more. I'm suggesting that we currently have proposals on the table to end all sorts of tax breaks (like mortgage interest); yet we can't touch a break given to these guys? The expression, what's good for the goose is good for the gander comes to mind.

Of course companies pass cost increases, as well as increased taxes, on to the consumer. But why should one set of businesses get breaks and incentives when others don't? No, I asked a leading question. It's only considered obnoxious if you don't like where it's leading. People (not just here) are arguing that we should continue to give billion dollar tax breaks to hugely profitable companies; primarily, because that will keep gas prices low. Well, why can't my business get large tax breaks. I'd pass the savings on to my customers. I'm just trying to understand why these few, greatly profitable companies continue to get nice tax breaks amounting to billions of dollars at a time when we're talking about cutting all sorts of programs to save millions of dollars from the budget. If the country is broke and needs to cut spending, I'd suggest we could also stop subsidizing highly profitable companies.

Sorry.. just asked a simple question. If you don't have an answer, a polite, I don't know would have sufficed.

So why don't we give ALL businesses huge tax breaks so the cost of everything will go down?