Dan

The single most wanted man in the world for nearly 10 years and that the US has openly hunted is dead and you don't expect the US President to comment on it? Seriously?

My guess.... if this were a normal season and you could sign UFA's today; he wouldn't have been drafted. But, given the lockout, the only way they could be assured to get him is with the final pick. Hence, it seems bizarre.

Know McKenzie well... that workout vid was shot in my hometown! I'm all on board this pick!! I hope he's starting this fall. (I'm sure he won't be, I'm not delirious. But I definitely hope the best for him and hope that includes a long productive career in Buffalo!)

Honestly, I could see this reasoning coming back up in 2 or 3 years. Someone is arguing that Nix has done a good job drafting and uses Dareus as an example. Only to have someone fire back... yeah, but he lucked into the pick - he really wanted Newton. So, Nix still will still be bad.... even if he's good. (I'm aware I'm making a huge assumption that Dareus pans out and Newton doesn't.) It's called can't win for losing, and no matter what happens, we have to find the worsts possible angle to focus on. I promise you the day after the Bills win the Super Bowl, someone will be here pissing about how they won and it's not good enough.

Carrington was a 3rd rounder. He and Troup have been used sparingly at best, so it's near impossible to say they've considerably upgraded the D-Line yet. Batten a 6th rounder, Coleman Undrafted, and Merriman who still has a huge question mark as to whether he can even play, let alone play well. Moats, who had an ok rookie year, was also a 6th rounder. That's a lot of late round, unproven, hopeful talent that's starting. Not to mention, who's the depth. And the Oline isn't much better, Wang, Urbik, and whoever we have at RT - all more hopes and wishes than solid play. So, IMO, all these great moves, as you see them, are trying to piece meal a line together and hope it all works out. And, again, that's trying to find quality starters. I really want to get behind this team. Believe me I do. But, the biggest weakness for more than a decade has been poor line play - offensive and defensive. And here we are again, only marginally addressing it while we're filling "holes" in the defensive backfield. Wasn't going into last year all the talk about having one of the best secondaries in the league? What happened? Maybe we can't generate a pass rush? I'm not jumping off any bandwagons. I'm not saying this is the worst draft ever. I'm just saying, that IMO, they're once again missing the mark of what this team's real weaknesses are and addressing holes that they're going to create by not re-signing perfectly decent players. That's pretty much the definition of running in place. Would it be so bad if they addressed the line, TE and LB positions with more than late round, undrafted guys that we hope develop in a few years? I guess so.

Unfortunately, for me, this draft has gone downhill. You're telling me that taking 2 DBs and a now a RB is addressing the holes on this team? We got 2 linemen. That's it. 2. So, Nix apparently thinks both the offensive and defensive lines are pretty well set. I don't get it. Of course, I'll wait till the season, if there even is a season, to start; but for me this draft is looking like more of the same. Picking a bunch of players with little direction or plan to actually build and address true needs. 1 LB. really... 1? oh yeah.... we're set.

You're in college. Someone throws a sex party and invites you as the guests of honor. You're not going to attend? You're a dumb jock trying to get through school to cash in on the NFL... and you're not going to cheat on tests? Someone gives you money for whatever reason... you're not going to take it? Seriously... all while your young and dumb in college. I'm not condoning it.. I'm just saying 99 out of 100 guys would do all of those things. Saying Newton has done it, doesn't necessarily mean he's a horrible person. Now stealing the xbox. That's just rude man. BTW.. not to stray off topic completely. NGU... thanks so much for the information and insight. This is the one pre-draft thread I've been waiting for!! Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

Maybe if you're you. But for some of us... it works out quite well.

Gotcha.

I don't get it.... why can't you? You can do all of those things, except grow weed. I know plenty of people that make their own beer, wine, and liquor. Certainly anyone can grown vegetables - organic or pesticide-laden, keep bees and even make their own honey. I don't understand why you think you can't do any of that. You can even sell it! Of course, you have to get the proper business licenses and all that, that entails.. but there's no one stopping you from doing it.

My advice/thoughts: Just be yourself.. whoever that is. If it's a coupon clippin cheapo; then so be it. Why try to be with someone that you have to pretend to be someone else around? It makes no sense to me. Granted you don't want to completely let it all hang out on the first date.. .but it sounds like you're past that point. So, I say take the coupon....

No, I'm not... home network. Good question about the VPN. You'd probably have to get one of your gadget guys to allow access through the VPN, otherwise I'm not sure one of these would work. DropBox is another great way to transfer files between multiple computers; but you'd almost certainly need VPN access for that as well. Plus, it has the added complication that you'd still need the software on the iPad to open the files. That's why I liked the TeamViewer... I was on my laptop computer and had full access to all it's sofware and, of course, when I got home all the files were right there.. no syncing. It takes a little to get used to using a mouse with your finger on the iPad screen... and of course you're slowed down with slow internet feeds. But, I highly recommend giving it a shot if you can get around the VPN.

Agreed. years ago, you'd have places like that review the latest software or computers... and not even a mention of an Apple product. Now... Apple seems to get tons of press and people claim bias. Funny how that works.

Add the LogMe In App ($29.99) or the TeamViewer App (free, with a few limitations - the one I used of course). Either one will give you full control of your laptop over the internet. I recently used it for a short trip, rather than carry my laptop. Wow, is all I can say. I had full access and control of my windows laptop - downloaded Word files, edited them, resent them, the works. I'm not sure I'd want to rely on it for a full week or more, but I was gone 2 days and didn't expect alot of "heavy" computer use. It worked great.

You seem to be implying that, based on their mission statement, the Tea Party is great and good. But, let me ask... can you really find a whole lot wrong with any political party's mission statement? From 2008: US Political Parties. Mission Statements are carefully crafted words that mean very little without the actions behind them. Give me a party that pushes through term limits for all Congressional Representatives and Senators and then you may be on to something; until then its all just nice talk.

That's precisely what this is. Obviously the US and just about every other nation want's the guy gone. But, with all the revolts and protests going on, you can't take sides or else you'll be faced with.. why aren't you helping everyone else out. The US, Europe, NATA, etc. got lucky in this one because Qadaffi is batshit crazy and started spouting off about genocide-type actions. So, it was easy to go in under a Kosova-type premise and do something. We don't have to go into Bahrain and Syria and everywhere else because those guys aren't threatening to kill everyone (although that's not saying they won't). Not to mention, the last thing we need to do is start going into this or any muslim country and start asserting ourselves into their revolutions. Again, Qadaffi made this one a relatively easy call. IMO, Obama and NATO are placing a huge bet. That if they do a few targeted air strikes, they can stop Qadaffi's army enough for the rebels to take control. If it works, great, and all breath a sigh of relief. They got rid of the guy with minimal effort and cost. If it doesn't and Qadaffi's forces regroup and start kicking the rebels asses... then it'll turn into a huge cluster!@#$. I reckon we'll know in a few months.

"Amazing you see no difference between not taking and giving." I just got it! Seriously. My brain was completely mis-firing. Yes, I very much know and understand the difference in the two. But what I'm suggesting is that in this instance the bailouts accomplished the same goal as a tremendously large tax rebate. It gave several large corporations a ton of cash to pump themselves up and thereby the economy. I'm not suggesting that our economic structure be set up to rely on bailouts. I'm not saying that corporate taxes should be raised. I'm just saying we gave these businesses a ton of money and that money is not trickling down as many predicted/expected/hoped and now we want to elect a different set of politicians because somehow they'll know how to get these businesses hiring again as opposed to opening up factories in Chinia. That's pretty much it.

It's been bad. I agree. I'll be in Columbus tomorrow to get things "started" and it's been no warmer there still I gotta start making the rounds. But, the cold won't/shouldn't really affect the bugs too much. Unfortunately for you (fortunately for me) they're well adapted to survive long, cold winters. In fact, all the snow melting (add in the spring rains) and flooding all the river plains will probably lead to a higher than normal crop of spring mosquitoes. So, if I had to bet, when the weather does finally warm.. it'll be pretty bad pretty quick.

That is correct!

I don't mind. I work in the mosquito control industry. I manage, oversee, and otherwise get involved in mosquito control programs nationwide, including your backyard (Chicago) and perhaps many of the posters here backyards (expect that dude in Anchorage - I haven't had the pleasure yet to kill stuff in AK ). The regulation I referred to is resultant from a Court ruling that adds CWA regulations (in addition to FIFRA regulations) to pesticide applications; specifically those applications made only for mosquito and other flying insect pest control, aquatic weed and algae control, aquatic nuisance animal control, and forest canopy pest control in that we'll have to get permits for all applications made on or near waters of the US. Of course, no one knows what near means; furthermore a water of the US is being redefined to include most any puddle of aqueous solution containing hydrogen and oxygen bound in some recognizable form. You may notice that agricultural and general pest control applications aren't covered. Imagine that... the industries that apply less that 1% of all pesticides in the country are being regulated, while Agriculture isn't.

I really don't disagree with any of that. And don't get me started on the regulations. The industry of my endeavor is about to face the single largest regulatory oversight ever imposed by the EPA. With any luck the damn Republicans in the House can pass HR872; but I fully expect the damn Democrats in the Senate to stall it. Either way, it's made for one hell of a time trying to stay in business and be profitable. I could go on... but we'd derail this thread more than we already have.

First of all, my comment to JiA was in reference to: I couldn't ascertain who was doing the taking, giving, not taking or whatever from his quick response. My brain couldn't make the connections to make a coherent response to his one liner. That's all. I meant no dig by it. OK. I'm not arguing, in any way, for more corporate taxes. I'm not suggesting that we tax the rich more. So, there's really no need to keep bringing that back up. I signed over 40 tax returns last spring.. believe I know how much corporate taxes are. What you're suggesting is that giving the money via a one time lump sum is not the same as giving tax breaks over a multitude of years. I just don't buy it. The whole idea behind the tax breaks is to put more money back into the corporations so they'll re-invest, hire and otherwise put that money back into the economy. The bailouts did exactly that... only it occurred all at once. So, once again, in the broad sense, the idea is the same. Give the corporations, the driver's of the economy, more of their money back and they'll .. drive the economy. In the mean time... the Bush tax cuts are still in place, the capital gains tax has not increased and all the other bad things have not yet happened. So, these businesses should have the capital and the means to begin hiring again, giving raises, developing new things, etc. But, they aren't. So, now we want to elect a new set of politicians on the premise that they'll be the ones to get these corporations hiring again rather than taking their business overseas or using new technologies to cut their workforce and increase their profits. It's hard to imagine we can give enough tax breaks to amount to trillions of dollars in wall street's pocket in the next year or two. But, I guess we should try because apparently the first trillion wasn't enough to get them hiring again. Yes, Reagan cut taxes for everyone. Once. But, he also raised alot of taxes while he was President as well. Furthermore, as I stated, across the board cuts can occur, but that's separate from the trickle down idea. From the very Wiki flush: "A major feature of these [Reagan's] policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes." That's the trickle down theory. Again, how is giving some bum making $35,000/yr going to trickle down to anyone? He's pretty much down there already.

+1 doesn't say it enough. Exactly.

I'm sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I think you're assuming too much about my statement. First, let's set things straight a little. Are you saying that there's a difference between the government giving large corporations trillions of dollars in tax breaks and them getting trillions of dollars in one lump sum? I understand that the trickle down theory generally refers to tax breaks, hence; I used the phrase, in the the broad sense. But, isn't a one time lump sum, equivalent to giving them tax breaks over the course of a decade or more? We didn't have a decade or more; the hope is/was that it would speed up the process. Trickle down economics is not and never was about an "across the board" tax cut for everyone. That's why they call it trickle down and not trickle up or trickle all around. The idea is you give tax breaks and benefits and otherwise help companies grow. They will, in turn, produce more, hire more people and raise salaries. The people, in turn, will then have more money to spend in the economy. That is the trickle down theory in a nutshell. But, no where in the theory is there a call for giving tax cuts to poor or middle class individuals. A politician may do that in addition to a Capital Gains cut (for ex), but that's a separate issue from applying trick down theories. And please, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that all corporations are bad and that we should raise all corporate tax rates. I'm not suggesting that all my woes are to blame on anyone. I'm just suggesting that we've rarely given corporate America as much immediate money as we just did; and they're not hiring, they're not producing more, and they're not raising salaries. Now, perhaps there's many reasons such as technology and globalization that are responsible. But, that doesn't change the fact that the economy is still quite sluggish compared to the injection the "drivers" of that economy just got. And now we have individuals complaining, wanting to know where the jobs are. Well... as you just said they're over seas and lost to technology. But, that's hardly the sole fault of the President or any politician. So, to talk about electing a politician on the grounds that he/she can bring those jobs back is falling into a trap (my original point).

In the broad sense, is it not an economic theory which states that investing money in companies (typically by giving them tax breaks) is the best way to stimulate the economy? So, giving billions upon trillions to the automakers and wall street bankers is not investing government money into corporations? With the idea that it would stabilize their businesses and allow them to prosper so we could all prosper in return?