BillsNYC

Not for a game no, but have been there for wings and beef on weck though. I know people who catch games there and enjoy it.

McFadden's, host bar of the NYC Buffalo Bills Backers (www.nycbbb.com) will be hosting first round draft choice Eric Wood at the bar for a "meet n greet" on Saturday, June 13th from 5-7pm. Any of you in the NYC area are welcome to attend, there will be beer/wing specials.

You mean the guy Donahoe/Mularkey fired so they could bring in a cronie that couldn't hold Rusty's jock?

100% agree.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa!

College Professor - "A diamond in the rough. The dreamer who can't take the criticism." Brian Flanigan - "Not from a guy who hides here because he can't hack it in the real world." From the movie Cocktail.

Jehova's Witness members refuse blood transplants, even if it will save a child's life.

My sister in law has cancer and decided recently to stop the treatment instead of prolonging the inevitable and living the rest of her short time here in pain. A kid should have the same choice if the family agrees.

Has NOT been cleared yet: http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/billsnfl/story/677146.html

I hope they choke those chicken cops.

Bingo...that's what I have been thinking. Liberals will be happy when photos are released, Conservatives infuriated, and Obama escapes blame.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-...0,1797091.story What a bunch of liberal bs. "But what's the alternative? For one thing, it will be very difficult to keep the photos under wraps at this point. Shouldn't the administration at least get credit for making them public, rather than waiting for them to be leaked to Seymour Hersh (as the Abu Ghraib pictures were)?" So Obama should ask for them to be released, putting our troops waging war in further danger and potentially igniting more anger across the mideast....just so he can take credit for the photos being released? "Like most Americans, we have not yet seen the images and don't know what they'll portray. But until they're made public, they seem likely only to inflame the imaginations of America's friends and enemies. The worst will be assumed." More BS - the only people who want to see them are angry liberals and those who already hate America. In the 24 hour news cycle of today, if these aren't released they'll be forgotten by most Americans, who I think have had enough.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/12/brit...h-are-you-paid/

I forgot my call in date so didn't do it...whoops.

That's pretty outrageous, but I don't buy that the government made not effort to negotiate until just now. It wouldn't surprise me if some of these folks were looking to make a pretty profit on the land knowing the government had to buy it. I'm sure more will come out about it as I feel like something is missing on the government's side.

So I'm confused... I'm a fiscal conservative Pro small(er) government Pro military Pro waterboarding when needed Although I'm Pro choice (with it being strongly regulated) Pro gay marriage I think far right conservatives are nuts but tolerable, I can't f-ing stand far left angry liberals. I don't know where the hell I fit in.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22439.html I can basically sum this up: Democrats: "Bush and all his cronies need to rot in a prison cell for torture! The CIA needs to be outed! We have to do everything we can to embarrass them! GET THE TORCHES!!!!" Republicans: "Uhh...you guys were on the same committee and knew about all of this and did nothing to prevent it when you could have." Democrats: "LIARS! We knew nothing about this! This was all the Republicans fault! We had NOTHING to do with this!" CIA: "Uhh...here are the memos basically saying you guys knew about it and did nothing to stop it." Democrats: "LIARS! The CIA is just out to get us! Pay attention to them, not to us!" The end sums it up well: "But Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the longest-serving member of the Intelligence Committee, said that if Pelosi or other Democrats objected to the interrogation techniques when they were briefed on them, they could have offered legislation — or withheld appropriations for the program. “We’re not without power up here,” Hatch said. “Now, they can make a fuss on policy differences, but to try and besmirch the people who had these tough decisions to make during those trying times is really offensive to people like me.” Asked if he felt the relevant lawmakers were kept informed of the interrogation tactics, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, who was the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, offered what he called “a strong, affirmative yes.”

That feels like an unbalanced article, I'd like to hear the government's side of it. Not saying it isn't true, but something doesn't smell right.

Agree....would love to see them add another DT.

Hahaha! I'll just spin move, that'll work! I'll just spin move, that'll work! I'll just spin move, that'll work!

Who's Peters? Oh yeah, he's an Eagle now.

I think RW was pretty hands off while TD was in charge. Sure he set some guidelines, but I think he pretty much handed the reigns over to TD with the intention of stepping down and enjoying the team as a fan in his twilight. This is evident for two reasons: 1) He handed over the President title 2) When things got REAL bad at the end, Wilson said he wasn't aware of any of it. That's why I think Mort's claims that TD's failure was all RW's fault are bogus.

Pisa and Popcorn? Sounds yummy.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/conten...19e6d05b9a27e43 "By and large, they personally forked out for his campaign, they voted for him, and they know he is capable of boosting TV ratings just by making an appearance. But executives at the Big Four broadcast networks are seething behind the scenes that President Obama has cost them about $30 million in cumulative ad revenue this year with his three primetime news conference pre-emptions. Now top network execs quietly are hoping that Fox's well-publicized rejection of the president's April 29 presser will serve as precedent for denying future White House requests for prime airtime. "We will continue to make our decisions on White House requests on a case-by-case basis, but the Fox decision gives us cover to reject a request if we feel that there is no urgent breaking news that is going to be discussed," said one network exec, who, like all, would not speak for attribution fearing repercussions from the administration. "If the president wants to make it tough for your network, he can," the exec added. Another network executive confided, "Nobody wants to take on the White House, so we'll have to tiptoe through this."

Good read: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/07/fee...cans/index.html