Typical TBD Guy

Give it a rest. Ralph and Jauron already know what they have in Losman: an 80yd TD pass to Evans followed by 4 sacks a game, 2 fumbles, 2 interceptions, 20 min TOP on offense, and a game loss. Losman is too mentally slow to be a starting QB in the modern NFL. The jury is still out on Edwards. As long as Edwards is healthy, he starts these final 4 games because - as sorry as it sounds right now - he's still the QB that gives our team the best chance to win. Back on topic, I think Ralph needs to STFU about anything related to football. He's lost all credibility with Buffalo fans right now by not spending money on good coaches and by not securing the franchise's future in WNY. He chose to call this game "the worst performance in 49 years" because he hopes Bills fans will forget much from the other 48 years where incompetence and crushing losses have been the norm. Choose any season between the late 60's and mid-80's...you'll find numerous performances like last Sunday.

Bingo. Instructions for matter2003: 1. Grab razor blade. 2. Sit in bathtub. 3. Slit wrists. 4. Wait 3-4 hours.

If this even slightly improves our chances of keeping the Bills in Buffalo, then I am personally happy to see that old man die. This football team means so much more to me than does the life of some random Canadian mogul. Ted Rogers never cared about the feelings of us WNY Bills fans, and I doubt he'd have cared if any one of us died. Therefore, I will be paying this douche and his family equivalent respect. Go yourself, Ted. Oh, wait...you can't...you're dead .

A simple question with a simple answer of "yes." Nearly all of the 20-something other NATO countries allow openly gay people to serve in the military. None of them have any problems with this policy whatsoever. Unless there are obvious logistical grounds for discrimination against a group of people (like, say, the physically handicapped in combat roles), no modern military force should be interested in preventing capable people from serving. National security is just too important of an issue to be engaging in concerns over whether or not two dudes like to kiss each other during their free time. You think the Israeli army would prevent some "queer" with various high-tech and linguistic skills from joining? Of course not. Their soldiers are more concerned about saving their nation and their own individual lives from utter annihiliation than they are about whether that infantry man from across the front lines was checking out everyone else's package.

My ad hominem attacks weren't intended to persuade you since you're a lost cause; they were meant to highlight where you're coming from to all others reading our posts. NARTH and Dr. Collins have an ideological (read: unscientific) agenda they're trying to push with respect to homosexuality. I won't disagree that sociological pressures can influence certain types of individual behaviors/choices/inclinations, but not all human behaviors/choices/inclinations are equal. Your argument here that gays choose their sexual preferences because of peer pressure and pressure from society is absurd. If that were the case, wouldn't it force them to be willingly heterosexual, so as not to have to constantly deal with all the homophobic pieces of sh-- Americans like you? Bigotry in itself isn't concerning. The troubling bigotry is that which crosses the demarcation between general disagreement and legalized intolerance. I disagree with Christianity, but I am not intolerant of it in that I will not use the state as a weapon to oppose it. I believe Christians should be allowed to marry, have public displays of Christian pride, serve in the military, have consensual adult sex in any manner they so choose, openly voice their beliefs, openly criticize non-believers, etc... No, I'll tell you why: because you provided no link . I kind of did answer this already in my previous post. Biochemical/hormonal imbalances in the mother's womb, where nutritional reception conditions aren't the same for each fetus. I wonder if you will actually read this? You are now comparing pedophilia to homosexuality?! Do I really need to point out the obvious logical fallacy here? Does it really even matter anymore? Are you, by any chance, Holcomb's Arm? Because you both have the same terrible grasps of logic and science.

Good point. I just changed my moniker to "McKinley's Blessing." To everyone: I'll be regularly updating this thread, once all the AFC games for each particular week are finished.

at your arsenal of persuasion: 1. A link to NARTH . 2. A singular scientist's viewpoint, who happens to be a born-again Christian. 3. A dubious claim that homosexuality must be driven by conscious choice since scientists haven't yet figured out the full biochemical/genetic/social mechanisms that lead to homosexual behavior. 4. Random (read: unscientific) polls where 1% of Orthodox Jews are gay and 50% of homosexuals admit to turning gay out of choice. 5. The causation-correlation cluster!@#$ of an argument that this "gay epidemic" in Western society is due to an increase in sexual orientation classes. Here's the reality for Stupid Nation and for the rest of you dumb!@#$ redneck bigots posting: homosexuality is not a deliberate choice for the 99% of people who are truly gay and not among the anecdotal attention-seeking sisters of cognitive dullards posting from SD. There is probably some genetic component, but the real creation of "gayness" likely occurs because of hormonal and biochemical abnormalities in the mother's womb. The clear majority of credible and impartial scientists believe this to be the case. If you, Stupid Nation, and your bigoted followers had spent as much time learning and studying as you do hating and fear-mongering at TBD about the vast gay-wing conspiracy, you might have all obtained your GED's by now. Then you would be able to apply to accredited 4-year universities not founded by Jerry Falwell or Bob Jones. Why don't you just come out and admit it? You are gay bigots. You want to keep them out of the military because they're different from you, i.e. they're not some perceived hypermasculine ideal American, not because you find their private sexual behavior "deviant." What a !@#$ing cop-out. For one thing, what business of a government institution is it anyway to care about how people spend their private sexual lives? For another, why don't you get up on your bully pulpit and protest against heterosexual soldiers who have anal sex or oral sex (or any sex not leading to procreation) with their wives and girlfriends and fellow female servicemen? Better yet, why don't you protest against soldiers who engage in sex with fat people or old people, both categories of which I'd argue can be just as "deviant" and disgusting to you and I as is homosexual intercourse? Stupid rednecks. Stupid Nation.

Wednesday, December 21, 2012....that'll probably be the day that Ralph holds a presser to announce that the Bills are moving to Toronto following the 2012 season - the final year on that 15-year RWS lease signed in 1997 .

Dean, Let's be brutally honest here: no type of education can help these low-IQ redneck types (Dante, God Bless America, Stupid Nation, SD Jarhead, etc.) from their ingrained homophobia. Just look at how they handle scientific evidence and logical reasoning in this thread...they don't...because I suspect they can't.

Remaining contract lengths for our overrated Donahoe DE's: Schobel: 5 years left after this season Kelsay: 2 years left after this season Denney: 1 year left after this season I don't think any of these three will ever get traded or cut, but I'm pretty sure all of them have signed their last contracts with the Bills organization.

Through Week 12: ------------- (division seeding) 1. Titans: 10-1 2. Steelers: 8-3 3. Jets: 8-3 4. Broncos: 6-5 ------------- (wild card seeding) 5. Colts: 7-4 6. Ravens: 7-4 ------------- (ranking of non-playoff teams) 7. Patriots: 7-4 8. Dolphins: 6-5 9. Bills: 6-5 10. Chargers: 4-7 11. Browns: 4-7 12. Jaguars: 4-7 (eliminated from AFC South Division Title) 13. Texans: 4-7 (eliminated from AFC South Division Title) 14. Raiders: 3-8 15. Bengals: 1-9-1 (eliminated from playoffs) 16. Chiefs: 1-10 (eliminated from Wild Card #1 and Wild Card #2) My Analysis: Going by record and remaining schedule, the South and West Divisions seem relatively settled with the Titans and Broncos winning their respective divisions and the Colts earning one of the Wild Cards (although I wouldn't be too surprised to see the Chargers beat out the Broncos). The Ravens and Steelers both have pretty difficult remaining schedules, so my best guess is that no Wild Card team comes from the AFC North this year. As for the AFC East and the status of our Bills, all I'll say is that we are in very big danger of losing not only the division title but also the other wild card if we lose even just 1 additional division game. The AFC conference record tiebreaker could be in play, as well, since there's the possibility that all 4 AFC East teams finish with a 3-3 division record. Therefore, I'd say that our final 4 games - including the Denver away game - are all "must win" scenarios. The 49ers game should also be considered "must win" (sorry Crayonz...) because I could see the Pats, Jets, and Colts all finishing 11-5 or better even if we were to win our last 4 after a 49ers loss to end up 10-6. Here's the silver lining: if the Jets lose to Miami in Week 17 or in 2 of their other 3 non-AFC East games, the Bills control their own destiny for that precious AFC East Division crown/playoff home game that has escaped us for the past 12 seasons. Week 13 Matchups to Watch: Bills over 49ers, 1pm, Sun Bengals over Ravens, 1pm, Sun Browns over Colts, 1pm, Sun Rams over Dolphins, 1pm, Sun Steelers over Patriots, 4:15pm, Sun Broncos over Jets, 4:15pm, Sun

Is Buffalo really that much colder, snowier, and economically worse off than Albany?

I prefer my critics of laissez-faire capitalism to at least have some rudimentary knowledge of micro/macro economic principles. And her blatant misrepresentation of Milton Friedman's views in her "Shock Doctrine" book was disgraceful. Anyone who so casually (and deliberately?) confuses many of Bush Jr. policies with free market policies is not worthy of any more of my time.

That's quite the understatement. Stuttering Bob's dead son probably looks healthier than he does at the moment.

If you replace the word "student loan" with "government grant" or "universal scholarship," then your assertion is correct; the market for a college degree would quickly reach a supply-demand equilibrium where the tuition basically becomes $5K/year more expensive. However, bear in mind the (very) obvious: loans are not free money. Not only do you have to pay the principal amount back, but you have to pay the interest charged as a service fee for borrowing that money. So just because every student was offered a loan doesn't mean every student would necessarily be persuaded to take it. The cost of education will still rise because money for education has now become that much more obtainable, but the percentage of this tuition rise will depend heavily on the loan's interest rate and the expected stability of this rate over the consumer's borrowing period. The tuition vs. loan interest rate relationship is inversely proportional. If we want to talk more broadly about the factors behind the increase of education costs over the years, here's my opinion of what they are (some of which have already been talked about in this thread): 1. More readily available student loans made by government, which began with the G.I. Bill in 1944. 2. Major private banks recently getting in the business of lending credit to students. 3. Increase in the sheer number of female high school students also wanting to attend college, going back to the late 60's. 4. Housing bubble which provided greater money access for middle class families. 5. General inflation of the U.S. monetary supply due to the Federal Reserve's actions. 6. A runaway "Giffen good" mentality toward higher education that has been collectively shared between employers and parents alike...for example, a $200K Ivy League-type private school education believed to be that much superior to a community college/state school/vocational school education that costs a very small fraction of $200K.

You're thinking of law and order, young SATM. America actually has a rich tradition of distrusting anyone who seeks to govern over others, i.e. of seeing them as guilty until proven innocent (only to be vindicated through the process of reelection). Our entire Constitution is dripping with cynicism toward power-grabbing politicians. And American history has long proven voter cynicism to be a very good thing. For example, many who voted Bush Sr. in 1988 should not have believed him when he said, "read my lips: no new taxes." Also, those who voted Bush, Jr. in 2000 might have wished that he had stuck to his "humble foreign policy" instead of trying to establish democracy in Iraq. I choose not to trust Obama when he states that only those who make $250K/year or more will see tax increases. Why? Because fundamentally I'm a cynic, but also because his VP running mate has been on record as suggesting the tax increase boundary should really be $120K/year. I also choose not to trust Obama's vague commitment to governing from the center when his brief Senate voting record was to the left of that unapologetic socialist, Bernie Sanders. Unlike you, I don't tend to look into Obama's eyes and see his good soul. All I see is another self-aggrandizing politician seeking an all-too-common grab for personal glory...this time via a uniquely strong disdain for the (former) American tradition of the free market.

A presidential campaign and a 14 trillion dollar GDP economy are two entirely different things. Obama did an outstanding job managing the former. No central authority, however, can nor should be managing the latter.

Anarchist! I'll post mine: 1) Libertarian Party 95% 2) Constitution Party 63% 3) Republican Party 47% 4) Reform Party 47% 5) Democratic Party 32% 6) Green Party 26% 7) Natural Law Party 21% For the record, I'm voting Barr/Root.

Wacka, would this also mean that policemen couldn't go after cases of sex slavery and underaged prostitution and pimp-on-ho violence? I assume the ballot was referring to consenting adults only?

An awfully blunt way of saying Obama is not against all instances of eminent domain, but neverthess...Palin is actually right on this one.

Not necessarily. It depends on what part of the economy you want to stimulate. Flat tax policies tend to favor capital investments, while progressive tax policies tend to favor consumption goods. Also, with progressive taxation, you know you're losing a more significant amount of wealth creation potential due to wealth redistribution (example: a wealthy owner of a widget company gets a specific size of his money taken away from the IRS, he contracts certain widget company operations as a result, the IRS redirects that sum of money to the poor, the poor use that money to buy widgets, the widget owner sees his company grow as a result of the rise in widget purchasing, but his original cash taken from the IRS as swell as the original company operations contraction still subtract from whatever newfound monetary gains he saw). As I stated in my above post to Steely Dan, I can tolerate a progressive income tax provided the rates are cut by about 50% across the board. But in our current economic situation, I would prefer a flat tax policy (i.e. a less progressive tax plan) because capital investments should be the highest priority on the eve of a deep recession like this one. So I suppose I am in favor of McCain's tax plan over Obama's. The trouble, however, is that I trust Obama to balance the budget much more than I do McCain since we know neither is likely to cut federal spending. If the deficit problem lingers too much longer, we might have to face some harsh monetary policy decisions that could jeopardize the value of our dollar. It's a Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich economic dilemma... P.S. Sorry for getting off topic, Steely Dan. Yes, I voted that American should be a meritocracy.

I'm against a federal income tax in principle, but if we must continue to have one, then I'd be content with a 0% tax rate for the poor that progresses to a cap rate of 15-20% for the very wealthy. I'd balance the budget under this tax plan, of course, by drastically reducing the size and scope of the federal government. So are you suggesting that the U.S. was never upwardly mobile until 1913? What about the Gilded Age?! I'd also suggest trying to tell all the doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs in this country with a straight face that their life success in any significant way could be attributed, directly or indirectly, to progressive income tax benefits (as opposed to having worked hard in school, worked hard at their job, managed their finances, and accepted general personal responsibility). Typical class warfare rhetoric mixed in with typical Steely Dan beliefs in conspiracy theories. The wealthy really aren't out to get you. If you're smart and hard working and fluent in PowerPoint, they may even pay you an annual salary to join them in their diabolical pursuits. You make it sound like private charity in America is irrelevant. I'm sorry, but that is blatantly false. Look up the stats, or just open your eyes. A classic example: New Orleans after Katrina. But you can't have a totalitarian state without the law and order muscle of government. Aristocrats need to control government before they can control the citizens. Corporations need to manipulate government market intervention before they can manipulate their consumers. Also keep in mind that the corrupting influence of aristocratic money on government is directly proportional to government size. If the voting public stays politically informed on candidates and protests such things as corporate bailouts and pork barrel legislation, aristocratic political influence is rendered impotent. Wrong. Revolutions don't result from large financial gaps between social classes if the percentage of people in the poorest social classes happen to be comparatively low, and/or if the poorest social classes are also able to maintain an acceptable standard of living. You are 100% correct when stating that the economy will grow if you give more money to poor/middle class consumers. But it grows even more if you give more money to the rich so they can invest in new business or research endeavors that create more jobs. So why not try to do both? Cut taxes on both groups, and cut frivolous government spending to make up for any lost revenue (assuming there is even any lost revenue, depending on the nation's current place on the Laffer curve).

That's kind of a moot question since our country has never made income tax demands on those without wealth. I have, however, always been quite vocal about preserving and creating jobs for our nation's college graduates, the working class, and the poor.

But that's not what you are doing. You are not asking through support from private charities; you are demanding through the barrel of big government's gun. I don't think you are a commie, but I do think you are a quasi-socialist. Maybe not a Scandinavian socialist, but certainly a mainland Europe socialist. You also strike me as someone who has intellectual potential, yet chooses to remain ignorant on economics and political philosophy. At least look into Ron Paul's "The Revolution: A Manifesto." It's a 200 page book that's like a Cliff Notes version of libertarianism. A very easy read.