LasBillz

It honestly was like watching a learned professor debating against a C-student frat boy- which OMG Bush really was. Flame away, those of you who still don't get it- all you have now is personal insults to make your "points".

OK, I've got a Bills license frame on my car. Four Bills shirts. Keychain, 3 mugs, wall clock, 2 banners- all Bills. Grew up in Depew, but live in the Southwest, so I got DirecTV to watch one team- you guessed it. I have overjoyed when we won, bled when we lost. The wife knew when to stay away. However, this year, from the preseason, it's been different. I felt comfortable with Mularkey, although troubled by the fact that the Steelers hadn't done much in the latter years he was there. Unlike, say, any assistant from New England. Any new coach is going to learn on the job, and that does not translate into a winning season. There is no sense of urgency anymore with this team- at least not from this fan. Also, our Bills are in a laughable Catch-22 with regards to Willis MaGahee- who is now healthy, and was projected as a top four draft pick. TD could have drafted OL help, or this season traded either Willis or Henry for OL help- which would leave the remaining back (Willis would be my choice) with a much better chance of actually being successful. No such move is being made, and the Bills continue to play the inferior talent as starter- Henry. If Henry is better than Willis, then why draft Willis? Dumb. I was encouraged by Losman's selection, and thought he might play a bit this year, if Bledsoe's fat lady was screaming, which she is. I hope he heals faster than humanly possible, since Drew is now embarrassing himself, and possibly ruining his chances at the Hall of Fame. Either way, I can't get too upset at the situation- why bother? Evans was a good pick- has real speed- but he and Moulds are wasted this year with this QB and this run-run-run system necessitated by a rotten OL that also can't pass block. So, this year, I'll watch the games, but the playoffs are way out there somewhere- not for us. Given that, I will laugh at Bledsoe, marvel at our defense, pull for MaGahee and the receivers to have patience, and hope for Losman. And wonder how to get a job where I can screw up for four years and still keep my job- just like Tom Donahoe.

Most far righters assume that anyone to the left of them, aka the majority, is a liberal. Or that someone who disagrees with them is an "idiot", has his "head up his ass", has lost control of his bodily functions, etc. I come to this board as a voice of dissent to what I see as a bunch of people who may want to debate. However, when pressed, they resort to personal insult. When a historical precedent is cited to pointedly compare such close-mindedeness to Western Europe in the 1930's, I am arbitrarily censored. Whatever happened to, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?" You guys don't want a debate- you crave total agreement. Step one on the march to...you know what. Truly sad.

Really? I didn't use the term "thousands of innocents"? Yes, I did. But it doesn't make your point, so you ignore it. Either you comprehension is wayyyyy off, or worse.

Once again, if I lost enough IQ points I might agree with you. Sadly for you, I haven't. Paco's question is comparing Bush's speech to Anan's, only because it makes his limited point. Pretty limited comparison, like taking a two person poll. You guys say again and again, the UN NEVER applauds speeches, and you offer Anan's speech as proof. Without reviewing all the speeches in the history of the UN, what proof do you have? Do you actually believe your own nonsense? So many closed minds...so little time.

I know better than to take the word of someone I'm arguing with, especially someone who personally insults me, like some of the characters (for lack of a better term, lest I be censored again for fighting back) on this board. I was commenting on Bush's speech, not comparing it to Anan's. However, if you turn the page back, you'll see that before the war, the neocons guaranteed we'd be greeted as liberators, with flowers and parades in Baghdad. If that weren't a misbegotten lie, at least the British delegation would have broken out in applause. And, once again- just because a neocon says it, doesn't mean it's true- do any of you now guarantee that in the history of the UN, a speech has NEVER been interrupted by applause? While we're comparing speeches, why not compare all the speeches made by world leaders in the history of the Assembly?

Wow. Is this guy for real? Here's some solid advice- why not write a book about your struggle? You could easily get your message out- but you'd better check Amazon- I think "Mein Kampf" is taken.

Oh, also- I didn't hear Annan's speech, I was commenting in George's. But I'm sure not taking your word for it.

OK- here goes a neocon-style argument about a specific talking point, disregarding the rest of the person's post, and giving them the choice between two points that have nothing to do with their larger opinion: You failed to comment on Bush's disregard for the thousands of innocent Iraqi lives he needlessly terminated, or in his words, "liberated". You did comment on what you claimed was my double standard about speech applause. Surely that means you have a double standard about double standards, leaning heavily towards accepting murder.

That may be part of the reason for the nonresponse, but Bush's tired rhetoric and political doublespeak truly ring hollow when not backed by a hand-picked audience of salivating Young Republican hacks worshipping his every misstatement. It's like a bad sitcom without the benefit of being pumped up by a laugh track- you get to see how truly lame it is.

Ol' Dubya finally wasn't playing to a hand-selected audience when he spoke to the General Assembly the other day... I heard it on the radio and it sounded like he was speaking alone from inside a water tank. I guess what was the most troublesome were his references to respect for human life- he must have been referring to Christian lives, because his neocon policies in the Iraq quagmire have killed many thousands of innocents. All for something that didn't exist- WMD's. So now he rationalizes about how Iraq is better off without Saddam. Our interests may be better off, but how can he claim that about Iraq? The audience at the UN knew the full picture- a superpower pounced on a third world country, albeit with a bad leader, on made-up charges. And now the leader of that superpower comes before them and essentially claims we were doing it for the people of Iraq. While killing countless thousands of Iraqi non-combatants. Anyone who thinks Saddam was a threat to us is deluded- the entire world was watching him, and he only controlled 1/3 of his country. We went after the wrong guy. Iran and the Saudis are more to blame for international terrorism, and we didn't go after them. Now that we have needlessly spent our political will and capital in Iraq, our options are severely limited by this quagmire. I wonder what the result would be if Dubya were to speak to an American audience that wasn't screened- just an average cross-section of citizens. Crickets would be a fond memory for him.

This year I'm running on faith. Our OL is terrible, #11 is limited, and we needed to acquire a more mobile QB- which we did in the form of the injured Losman. However, Donohoe took a risk in not beefing up the OL, instead relying on McNally to resurrect the line. That will take at least until the end of this season to see if it pays off- meantime, this offense will be sad to watch. At this stage of his career, Bledsoe would need Denver's OL to be moderately effective in downfield passing- that isn't happening here. The other thing about this team that begs for patience is the growing pains that Mularkey is going through- the weird decisions that are helping cost us games. Punting from the Jag's 33, and refusing to use MaGahee last game, even though he is the better talent chief among them. I'm actually settling into the idea that this edition is probably not getting out of the AFC East basement this year. The Miami games should set records in offensive futility for both teams. Sad. The main question I have is this- how much time does Tom Donohoe have left?

The fact that Bush let Osama go by instead going after Saddam should piss you off- Al Queda survives , the jihad goes on because of Bush's incompetence. We're not going into the Sudan because they have no oil. As for Iran, they know we're not coming after them- another result of Bush shooting off all his guns in the wrong place- Iraq. Now that Bush has us in a long-term, misguided quagmire, don't be surprised if your kids will have to deal with something much worse than Saddam. My oldest boy is fourteen, and I can see it coming. Remember- Saddam was powerless, inspectors found nothing- the neocons hatched their plan in 1998 and mistakenly used it in response to 9/11/01.

I'm going Kerry too, for reasons stated above and the fact that Bush wants to drive 77,000 tons of high level nuclear waste past my house and then dump it outside of my town. Kerry has publicly vowed to stop it on behalf of national (antiterrorist) interest. On a Bills note, isn't Morten Anderson available?

VT, I like the tag line about Lindell at the bottom of your note. That relates in a way to how I view Bush's attitude on the stump. Imagine if Donahoe called a press conference, came out and said: "Ryan Lindell is a likeable guy. Good looking, comes from a nice family. True, he has cost us some games, and in the future he will cost us more games. Honestly, he can't kick over 40 yards to save his a$$. He has poor judgement and bad ability at his job. But if we brought in another kicker, who knows what could happen? So, we're keeping Lindell. At least we know what he stands for." Donahoe would be stupid to do that, just like the American electorate would be in re-nominating a known failure.

I am afraid that Iraq is our problem regardless of the outcome in November. The only thing that might change that in the forseeable future is if things suddenly start looking up in Iraq. Allies will stumble forward if success appears to be imminent. Also, I guess if we suffered another horrific terrorist attack on our own soil, that could rally some sympathy. Perhaps, but you are underestimating how much Bush has PO'd even our traditional allies. I think a change could not be any worse. Things are not going to "look up" in Iraq any time soon, if ever. These people fought other Islamics, the Iranians, for 10 years tooth and nail. And while it isn't a religious war from our end, it certainly is becoming that from theirs. Unfortunately, I'm afraid another terrorist attack on our soil just might result in more than a few "I told you so"'s from other nations, in view of our misguided policies.

Your statement implies that we had two equally bad choices: Invade Iraq or not. Not invading, leaving a powerless Saddam, and going after Al Queda full strength, we would not be in the soup we are today. Iraq has been an expensive, unnecessary diversion that has not served this country. Further, let's extrapolate your point: Do we stick with the guy who made a huge blunder getting us into Iraq, re-elect him and let him get us into the same situations in Syria, Iran, and God knows where else? We can't afford Bush anymore.

...and we are not getting out anytime soon. Estimates range from five to ten years of US troop involvement in Iraq. That means tens of thousands of US casualties. Now that we have mistakenly committed our national prestige, uneccessarily PO'd and mobilized most of Islam, and turned Iraq into a terrorist haven, we cannot leave for the forseeable future. Doesn't matter who is President. Anybody who thinks this isn't true is lying to themselves. This administration is already into minimizing the costs: Rumsfeld just last week rationalized the loss of over 1,000 of our sons and daughters to serve his own arrogance and ignorance. Anybody stop to think how much another 5 years of this unneeded war will cost monetarily as well? It might just bankrupt this country, people. Right now, we have no effective checks or balances in our federal government. One party runs the executive, legislative, and yes, judicial branches. See election 2000. One thing you've got to hand to Bush, though, is the fact that he has manufactured a situation where we now must remain at war without forseeable end. Osama is still out there, and by attacking Iraq, we have given him limitless new recruits. The fact that Bin Laden et al still exist is Bush's fault. Whatever happened to his "decapitate the leadership" strategy? Was Osama exempt?Instead, he and the neocons couldn't wait to put their 1998 plan to attack Iraq into action- which would have been a good thing if Iraq had indeed attacked us! The problem is, Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda- the operative word being HAD. Now it's a terrorist nation- courtesy George Bush. Many on this board think I'm a Dem- actually, I am a registered Independent and voted for Daddy Bush in 1988. Politically, I believe mainly in 2 things: split government and accountability. If any one party has total control, I feel it is less of a Democracy. And if someone screws up, you get rid of that person as soon as the next election comes up. Right now, the shortest distance between those two points is throwing George W. Bush right out on his ear.

Gilbert Perreault- #11. No connection, French or otherwise...

Last I knew, he retired with a bad back. Too bad- we could use him.

This morning's paper- Tom Coughlin has fined three or four players for not being "early enough" to meetings. At least three players are appealing the fines. I believe his quote was, "They know the meetings start on time- five minutes early". Frank Burns has nothing on this guy.

That's what play action does, if used properly. Running 7 times in a row is just plain stupid. After 4-5 runs, the defense tightening up, fake a handoff, and find Moulds or Reed wide open. I really thought that Mularkey said they would use the run to open up the passing game, not to open up...more running.

Another vote easily bought.

Actually, it is radically and cynically different than what the previous (Democratic) administration actually did. They paid down the debt, produced confidence in the economy and rode the resulting longest peacetime economic expansion in history. No pretending there, AD. This all actually happened.

Since the first part of your post is pure balderdash, why should anyone grace the second part with an answer, since it's more of the same?