Typical TBD Guy

Or how about God? I'm not at all religious, but follow this sequence with me: 1. Tim Russert - by all accounts a good man - dies 2. Seahawks are banged up...Bills win 3. Jags are banged up...Bills win 4. Raiders have coaching turmoil...Bills win 5. Rams have coaching turmoil...Bills win 6. OJ found guilty 7. Cards are banged up...Bills.....WIN?!

O'Reilly is a genuine a-hole, but he didn't lose the argument. Technically, no one won the argument because it was a stupid shouting match. However, Barney Frank's got a lot of blood on his hands, and for once it's not from his boyfriend's anal cavity. Frank's share of the responsibility in this financial mess is simply indefensible.

This is just off the top of my head, so it's almost certainly not complete: UFA's: Losman Hamdan Chambers Whittle Preston Crowell Greer Wilson RFA's: Jackson DiGiorgio Players to Extend: Peters Stroud

Interesting observation. You think our recent success in the second half of games could be due to this guy's camera skills?

1964 (won first 9 games, went on to win AFL Championship) 1965 (won first 4 games, went on to win AFL Championship) 1975 (won first 4 games, missed playoffs) 1980 (won first 5 games, made it to second round of playoffs) 1988 (won first 4 games, went on to play in AFC Championship game) 1991 (won first 5 games, went on to play in Super Bowl) 1992 (won first 4 games, went on to play in Super Bowl) Interesting...

Agreed! Back in the day, Thurman Thomas would sometimes take one of these types of penalties (throwing a helmet or something) to rally the team.

Off the top of my head, Remove U.S. troops from the following places: 1. Iraq 2. South Korea 3. Germany 4. Japan 5. Italy Cut the following departments of the federal executive branch: 1. Agriculture 2. Commerce 3. Education 4. Energy 5. Homeland Security 6. HUD 7. Labor 8. Transportation To make this happen, start by voting for either of the following on Election Day: 1. Non-incumbents 2. Libertarian Party candidates

Any severe economic downturn between Reconstruction and Wilson's presidency will suffice. Pretty much all of them involve a government interference trifecta of protectionism, overspeculation, and money supply manipulation. How about the one starting in 1893? By the way, you saying it's a silly argument doesn't make it so. I have consensus opinions of credible historians, economists, and political scientists from which to draw; you, well, you have George Soros, Jon Stewart, and the Film Actors Guild directing your thoughts. One more thing. Before I continue to engage in a debate with you, I'd like to see you do the following two things: 1. Acknowledge one policy Bush has had in the past 8 years that you think was good. 2. Mention one political issue where you think McCain is correct and Obama is wrong.

Better yet, the Bills D ranks 2nd in the NFL for third down conversion percentage (18%) . The Ravens - who have only played 1 game this year - sit at #1 with 15%. Evidently, Stroud + Posluszny + Mitchell + Simpson = big improvement. Too bad we couldn't also have last year's leading tackler, Crowell, in place of Ellison.

Exactly. You guys and your crazy cheating conspiracies . Sincerely, Tim Donaghy

Um, the laws of economics are most certainly natural, so long as there are sentient beings to make use of these laws. Do you think the field of mathematics is natural? Also, FWIW you shouldn't reference Gilded Age economic downturns to prove your point. The federal government's policies of lending credits, imposing tariffs, and handling the money supply are what made those down cycles so awful. We haven't had full-blown economic depressions since the 1930's partly because the Federal Reserve Chairmen since then have been much more knowledgeable about the repercussions of their decisions. Even so, I'm not comfortable with having the entire economy of 325+ million U.S. citizens (plus the rest of the world) precariously subject to the decisions of one unelected person within the executive office. Seems like you are. Fair enough. But you strike me as someone who wouldn't disagree with anything the head of your political party of choice decides to do, though. I.e., you're a partisan idiot.

3 Super Bowl titles and a 56% overall winning percentage certainly helps that perception.

Oh yeah, I forgot about you. Funny that it was not too long ago that this board seemed overloaded with illogical right-wing zealots, but now it looks like you partisan left-wingers have organized yourselves well....and are here to stay. So be it. If PPP can't have intelligent discourse, then at least it can meet the "balanced" part of "fair and balanced." The majority who have posted here seem OK with government regulation of trade, based on the notion that some industries are "too big to fail" and that the valleys of the economic cycle are too low to tolerate without some sort of moderating influence, i.e. government. Regarding industries "too big to fail," my question is this: where do we want to set the limit of what's too big and not too big? So far, people are OK with investment banks being too big to fail. A lot of people will lose money in their retirement savings, although investing (like life) always comes with a level of risk. The rule of thumb is to "diversify, diversify, diversify" to lower the risk level. But how about the Detroit automotive industry? If us taxpayers don't bail the mismanaging car execs out, lots of Detroit autoworkers will lose their jobs. How about small computer software businesses that fail? Collectively, they are a HUGE segment of our national economy. Do we bail all of them out? Or just some? How do we select which ones get the help and which ones don't? Getting even smaller, how about individual American citizens who realize they took out too many student loans and can't pay them back? Regarding government intervention to lessen the lows of the economic cycle, a really good discussion of this is probably well beyond the scope of PPP (save a few like DC Tom, BlueFire, etc), for I doubt many here have taken college courses in microecon/macroecon. But to get started, look up the debate over the causes of the 1930's Depression. In particular, pay attention to the Keynesian analysis (too little government regulation) vs. Austrian analysis (too much, especially concerning the nation's money supply) of what happened. The left-leaning mainstream media (with the notable exceptions of Fox News and WSJ) has done a very effective job of portraying laissez-faire economists as lunatics in the post-Reagan era, yet a few of these lunatics did manage to squeaze out enough good ideas to win Nobel Prizes on what happened in the 1930's. A summary of the basic laissez-faire premise would be that unnatural government interference in the economy actually makes these cycles MORE severe and not LESS as the great economic scholar, Barack Obama, would have you believe (of course, McCain really has no !@#$ing clue either).

NEWSFLASH TO ALL THE ILLOGICAL, OVERPROTECTIVE FATHERS EVERYWHERE: your daughter is eventually going to have sex. And if she is even remotely attractive, she will lose it before she hits 18. Also, having sex isn't evil. You don't go to an imaginary place of eternal fire if you have it before - (gasp!) - getting married.

Thank you . Your post is an oasis of competence in the PPP desert of molson/blzrul/justnzane/steely economic stupidity.

Sorry if this is redundant, because I have no patience for reading through 4 pages of flinging feces, but the following article is all you need to get out of this moronic thread: http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrau..._gibsons_gaffee

Um, I've actually been one of the very few vocal supporters around here of giving McCargo more time to develop. How about keeping 5 DT's on the roster? It would require cutting such stellar depth players as Justin Jenkins or Matt Murphy or Bryan Scott, but I think we can manage. Like I said, lose Stroud and we're back down to being unable to stop the run or free up our DE's for a decent pass rush. If another high draft pick presents us with the opportunity of taking a DT who can do more damage than Williams or Johnson, you go for it.

I'm way more concerned about our DT's than DE's. Like High Motor said, we're a Stroud injury away from defensive mediocrity again. Our needs, in this order, are: 1. OLB (the future of Crowell's knee is in doubt, plus he's a free agent this coming March) 2. C (Fowler is solid backup, Preston should not be in NFL) 3. DT (replace McCargo if he doesn't develop by end of year) 4. TE (in the mold of Jay Riemersma) 5. G (replace Whittle) 6. QB (replace Losman) 7. FB (Barnes doesn't overwhelm me with his talent)

By "street" do you mean internet bloggers on political message boards and chat rooms? Ron Paul's stance continues to be that he is not officially endorsing any particular candidate, but that he does think Barr and the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin represent his minimal government message much better than either Obama or McCain.

My 5 year old nephew just called. He said he wants his debate tactic back.

Did anyone see part 2 of the interview? Papa Bear exposed Obama for the socialist piece of sh-- that he is. Let's see, giant douche or turd sandwich? Hmm, I think I'll be voting Bob Barr.

Have all you football experts given up on McCargo just like you gave up on Youboty a month ago? All it takes is ONE FREAKING INJURY to any of our DT's for McCargo to be back in the regular rotation. By the way, I have yet to see any solid confirmation of these McCargo trade rumors.

Bryan Scott. We already have 4 safeties on the roster, plus Corto or any of the CB's on the roster can play emergency S.

This thread has lost all sense of direction. Shouldn't we first define what it means to be a "racist" since I'm guessing everyone has different criteria for this label? How about: 1. A belief that one must be inferior to another in an academic, athletic, or other endeavor solely due to skin color and not due to one's individual merit? 2. A desire to separate from or not want to associate with a person as a friend, employee, or fellow citizen strictly because of that person's skin color? Next, shouldn't we dissect the evidence of racism at Fox News? Comedy Central gave us 5 specific clips: 1. The "Barack Hussein Obama" comment from Steve Doocy on Fox and Friends 2. The comment from the lady saying we should take out both Osama and Obama 3. E.D. Hill's "terrorist fist jab" comment 4. O'Reilly's "articulate" comment 5. John Gibson's call for white people to make more babies My own opinion is that Fox News - while often blatantly conservative and pro-Republican - is not racist. The first two clips I listed seem to have been motivated by political biases only. Hill's defense was that she was merely providing a description of what others were saying; it should also be noted that Fox News quickly cancelled her show. O'Reilly's soundbite clip was clearly taken out of context. I'm not exactly sure what's going on with Gibson, so you make the call: If you watch the clip in its entirety, it may have just been a poorly worded explanation of a social trend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unite...ropolitan_areas #22. Pittsburgh #25 Cleveland #46 Buffalo Also note that Rochester is at #50 and that including the Toronto metro area would put us comfortably in the top 10.