Dan

I could agree with that. However, why don't the two sides sit down and work out a proper mechanism of funding the bill? I should also point out that this bill isn't being funded by creating taxes; it's primary mechanism of funding is making corporations pay their current taxes. OK, so there's a shortfall of funding in the later years of the bill; why not sit down together and figure a way to cut spending or close other loopholes to make up the difference? If anything, this bill and its"debate" over the last two years is a prime example of what's wrong with this country and our current political climate. Compromise and rational thought seem to be outside the boundaries of consideration. Even in a simple discussion, here, I get called an idiot for attempting to add some factual context to the discussion. (thanks, btw) Yes, everyone wants to take care of first responders, but no one wants to do anything about it - one side doesn't want to consider cutting waste from elsewhere; the other side doesn't want to take money away from corporate donors. So, in the end... nothing gets done and the country and its citizens are worse off. Meanwhile the politicians remain.

From a cost summary: "Under current law, certain payments (principally dividends, interest, and royalties) made by US-based entities to a parent company based overseas are subject to a 30 percent withholding tax. That requirement customarily is reduced or eliminated when the payment is made to a country with which the US has a tax treaty. Companies with parents based in tax haven countries are able to effectively bypass the withholding tax by routing payments through an affiliate in a tax treaty country, which then transfers the funds to the parent company. The provision would limit this practice by retaining the withholding tax on certain deductible payments (principally interest and royalties) to a foreign-based affiliate unless the tax would be reduced under a treaty if the payment were made directly to the company’s parent corporation." full text What am I missing? "The WTC program (as created by the bill) will provide: (1) medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible emergency responders and recovery and cleanup workers who responded to the World Trade Center terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and (2) initial health evaluation, monitoring, and treatment benefits to residents and other building occupants and area workers who were directly impacted and adversely affected by such attacks." (again, from the summary) I don't know much about the guy building the Ground Zero Mosque, but I'd assume he can prove that he was directly and adversely impacted by the attack (as defined in the bill). If so, yes, he should be eligible for coverage.

Here's how I see it: The Bills are a much improved team in comparison to when we played earlier this season. In every aspect, we've progressed. I'm quite surprised and excited by that. However, the Pats* are also playing better. I'd venture that it's hard to find a better playing team right now than them. So, it's going to be a true litmus test for this young Bills team to see where they're at. In no way do I expect a win. I'm sorry, but the Pats* are just too efficient right now; unfortunately Brady is playing as well as he ever has. But, what I hope to see is a competitive game - a young team fighting hard to stay in it. But in the end, the Pats* really should win rather easily. Our defense has improved, but is no where near competent enough to slow down Brady and that offense. I will say this, for what it's worth... a good friend of mine is a big time Pats* fan. He told me this weekend that of their remaining games, this was the one he was worried about. Yeah, he expects a win (any sane person would), but he's even noticed the improvement in the Bills and knows they aren't just going to quit. So, again for what it's worth, it's kinda nice to start getting a little respect again.

Got a free trip to the game today and had a pretty good time. A few quick thoughts... Miami is a really bad place to see a game. The fans are horrible. I'm not even sure most of them knew a game was going on. Two dudes playing hip hop were actually funneling bud and doing the electric slide... by themselves....WTF?!? Pretty decent amount of Bills fans, though. It was really windy today. I don't know if they mentioned it during the game. But, maybe that's why the kicking games were so bad. Those FGs were definitely not gimmies in the wind. Love the win over the fish and knocking them out. Fun stuff. Go Bills!

You're not supposed to lock your checked luggage. Most of the times they'll ask. I never lock mine, but I assume they'd want you to unlock it or, as SpillerTime said, they'll unlock it (i.e. cut it open) for you. So, I wouldn't zip tie it. My strong suggestion, as a very frequent flyer and one that checks his luggage, don't put anything in the checked luggage that's of high value. Camcorders, laptops, etc. The baggage handlers are not at all trustworthy, as Joe6pack just found out. (Sorry, Joe, but my guess is the baggage handlers; not TSA as this kind of crap has been going on long before TSA was even initial that meant something.) If you have presents, don't wrap them, and carry them on (or FedEx./mail them). Laptops are not a problem. Put it in your carry on. They'll make you take it out and put it in a separate bin/bus pan to go through the xray, but you don't have to turn it on or anything. It's really a non issue. They'll probably want you to put your sirius radio in a separate bin as well. Again, no biggie. But, they really key in on electronics for whatever reason. The best way to get through security is travel light and just do what they ask. I always check a bag just so I go through security light and I don't have to deal with my shaving lotion being too big or anything like that. Plus it just makes getting through security a breeze. Plan to take your shoes off - no matter what kind they are. I usually put my watch, cell phone, ipod, etc. in my jacket pockets; that way I can just take my jacket off and put it in a bin and all my stuff is easier to keep track of. Otherwise, it's really common sense and do whatever they ask you to do - its easier and quicker than arguing. Pick a security line without a bunch of kids if at all possible.

And as the Democrats have shown time and time again, having the majority means little. For various reasons, the Republicans are able to obtain voting unison much more readily and frequently than the Democrats. So, if 1, 2, or 3 democrats don't vote on party lines; then their majority means little. And how many times over the last 2 years has their been 100% Democrat backing on a bill. Hence, this bill, like all the others, needs at least a couple of Republican votes. In this instance, they're getting none.

With all due respect, are you not using talking points and media spin in your statements above? You're stating that Congress needs another month or two to make sure al lthe i's and t's are dotted. But, in fact, the Bill was first introduced on Feb. 4, 2009. It's undergone quite a bit of discussion and revision since that time. But, how much longer is needed to verify the contents the bill? This bill isn't being rushed to passage; it's been tossed around Congress for nearly 2 years. There are certainly politics at play here - on both sides. I agree, nothing in Washington gets done without serious political undertones. However, this is a fairly straightforward Bill (as far as congressional bills go). Help first responders that are now sick and pay for it by closing a corporate tax loop hole. You state it'll get passed in the next couple of months, so what's the rush. To that I pose 2 questions: How do you tell someone that's dieing now to wait 2 months for proper health care? What's going to change in the Bill in the next 2 months that makes it more palatable for passage? Normally I don't like to blame one party over the other; but in this case, it's entirely the Republican party that's preventing this thing from coming to the floor. I think it reasonable they get the fair share of the blame for this one.

I've been saying it for years....Brady is a true pocket passer that relies on timing routes and quick slants over the middle. The way you beat that is to get pressure on him right up the middle. Get someone in his face on every down and knock him around as much as possible. Man the corners up and jam the WRs at the line to throw off the timing. The one thing to consider is the hot read becomes the quick slant over the middle; so you know that going in. Put your best coverage LB in the middle and light Welker up. But, there's absolutely no reason to just rush 3 or 4 guys and let Brady have all day to pick you apart. He's proven time and time again, that he'll beat that. So, I agree with the OP; knock him on his every chance you get. Yes, you may give up some long gain; you will get some penalties. But, you have to rattle him and he's shown that he can be rattled with steady and constant pressure in his face. He's perhaps one of the most pansy Qbs to ever play the game... get his jersey dirty and he'll get frustrated and rush his throws.

I must admit... this past off season, the Redskins were making all the moves I would have hoped the Bills would make. In fact, the Bills did try to make these moves - Shanny and McNabb were both courted by the Bills. I really thought Skins would be a team on the rise this year, and Buffalo with its far less than desirable hires would continue in their mediocrity. (The only thing different I would have done if I were Washington would have been to draft a young QB to take McNabb's place in a couple of years.) I guess this all shows why I'm not an NFL GM. Although it's entirely too early to draw any firm conclusions; the Skins appear to be in worse shape than ever; while the Bills are the "feel-good" story of the last half of the season. It'll be really interesting to watch these two teams over the next couple of years. Both teams have been pretty bad, both teams made major changes in 2010, yet each team took very much different approaches to their rebuild. It'll be quite interesting to see how each team fairs over the next couple of years; especially when you consider the Bills (appeared at least) to really want Shanahan and McNabb.

Wasn't that what we were saying last year about the offense? The line sucked, no WRs, journey backup in Fitz, etc. Insert a decent offensive-minded coach and half those problems seem less severe. How can you be so certain that a significant portion of the defenses problems aren't because the coaching sucks?

Excellent strategy... score fast on every possession. I like it.

If anyone went into this year expecting more than 3 or 4 wins, they were delusional. So, you kinda have to throw the record out the window. I can say I'm happy with the team because the offense has certainly improved as the season progressed. Fitz looks more and more like a starting QB. The line doesn't seem nearly as dismal as it did last year. Stevie has shown that he can be a legitimate WR in the league. Gailey appears to have a clue. Prior to the season, I had zero confidence he'd be competent let alone actually able to moivate this team and get them to play hard. The defense still leaves quite a bit to be desired. Although they seem to be improving as well; I'm not convinced just yet. I'm still in no way sold on our assistant HCs. But, I'll give them another year because, after all, what else can I do... B word endlessly on a message board? So, overall, I'd say I'm happy with the Bills. Of course, we'll see what happens this off season to see if that feeling is sustained or shot down in flames.

Easily the best post game write up out there (if we could get Lori's pregame write ups back, we'd have a perfect world of Bills analysis and breakdown). I look forward to your comments each week. It's posts and "meaningless" opinions such as these that make this the best and only place to get Bills info and discussion. Thanks for sharing your opinions.

I think there's a few things to consider: The 0 for the 70's was 30-40 years ago. Most, or certainly a large portion, of the posters here probably weren't alive that long ago. So, the hatred from that time tends to fade. Especially when you consider many of the younger fans grew up n the 90's when the Bills regularly beat the Fish. Furthermore, the younger generation of Bills fans have their own streak of futility... against the Pats*. Beating the Pats* only one time in the last decade has given many fans a new favorite team to hate. Add to it the fact that the Fins haven't really been that good of a team for the last 10 years (nor have the Bills), and you get general apathy. So, yeah, the passion for squishin some fish is dwindling with each year of sucktitude and with each each Pat* win over the Bills.

The point I made had nothing to do with compliance or mediocrity. I was simply asking for rational, factual thought. To suggest that drafting a QB with our first draft pick would be done with the primary motivation of marketing is disingenuous in the least. We've needed a franchise QB for quite some time. We all know that. Now when the owner finally agrees and says we'll draft one; it gets spun into a marketing ploy? Come on. You can't have it both ways. Is Ralph cheap for not bringing in a franchise QB or is he only thinking about making money when he drafts one? It's quite analogous to the TO situation last year. It's been widely touted as a marketing move. Yet, everyone saying that ignores the fact that the FO brought in every decent FA WR prior to TO being cut. So, how do you reconcile that? They were clearly looking for a WR, then TO got cut; then they signed TO; then they were accused of making a move just to sell tickets. It doesn't add up. It's been said Ralph went cheap with the hiring of Gailey. But, did he not try desperately to hire Shanny, even reportedly offering him a share of the team? In the end, perhaps he cheaped out; but maybe because it was his only real option when every top flight coach on the list turned them down. I ask, again, what moves could be made that are actually considered good for the team and do not carry some ulterior motives to either make money or save money?

Ya know... it really is nonsense to thinK that the majority of moves made by the Bills are done so at the direction of Ralph to make money. While, yes, I'll agree that making money is an important factor in many decisions; but you could say that about every franchise in the league. Do you honestly think there's an owner out there that says, profits be damned just do whatever you guys want? To think bringing in a new QB is a marketing ploy is right up there with thinking that TO was only brought in as a marketing ploy last year. It ignores the facts. And the facts are that last year the Bills tried numerous times to upgrade the WR position and were rejected each time by the FAs. It wasn't until TO was released and had no where to go that he was brought in. Of course, they marketed him; but if that's the only reason they brought TO in was to sell tickets; then why did they try several times before that to bring in WRs? Now, the facts are we've had horrible QBs for years... years. Yeah, Fitz has begun to play well; but at the time of Ralph's comments we were a long way from thinking Fitz could be a good starter. Yet, when they talk about bringing in a new QB, it's suddenly a marketing move? I suppose if the Bills stay with Brohm and Levi, then Ralph's being cheap? Let me ask... is there anything the FO can do that's right? Because it sure doesn't seem that way.

Stats and numbers are for sissies. Just make some stuff up and state it long enough... that's all you gotta do. Now man up, and shout out counter stats if you want to refute the claim.

Major assumptive flaw in your argument.

No worries. I didn't mean to sound chippy. I guess I was having a bad evening and the thought of someone thinking I might be creative... well it just put me over the edge.

Excuse me? My screen name is only 3 letters and they're my real name.... you can't get less creative than that. I bet Kevin's not even his real name. Honestly... I really get no respect around here.

Actually, I think it'd be better if more people didn't make sweeping generalizations about rookies in preseason. But, I agree, it's nice to see someone admit they may have been wrong about a player. All too often, it seems people make up their mind about someone and then become hell bent on proving themselves right for the remainder of the guy's career.

And with that I can wholeheartedly agree!

thanks

They're certainly trying, to say the least. Is it me or are they bringing in a lot of guys for tryouts? Do all teams do this? I really don't recall the previous FO making this many in-season moves. I fully expect Evans to go in IR just so they can get another guy in for a few weeks.

I wouldn't say they're Pretty Bad. I'd say, they're Pretty Average. He's right at middle of the pack overall.