RkFast

Excuse me, YOU said that Holcomb was signed to foster an "open competition" between the two players. I blasted that statement to bits in seconds. Dont you tell me my business again.

bull sh--. Drew Bledsoe was done away with and JP Losman, the player the Bills gave up TWO draft picks for (and rightfully so) was given the job. NOWHERE AT ANY TIME was the job announced as an "open competition" between Losman and Holcomb. Never. The job was given to JP, JP was told he was "the man" and the fans were told that JP was told he was "the man". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Feb16.html that link took THREE seconds to look up.

There already is one.

Count me among those who are done.....DONE with this current team. This decision is a complete outrage, IMO and dare I say Im rooting for a Miami blowout on Sunday with the fans giving Mularkey (and Donohoe) exactly what they deserve as the game goes on.

Discrimination based on sexuality or participation in "faith based" activities you can quibble with. The rest? No way. If a couple wants to acquire a baby through adoption, you have to prove your "baby worthiness". And from what I understand, its quite the stringent process and things as small as whether or not you have your sockets child protected affect the outcome of the decision.

Thats bull sh--. The FFs did not intend for the Seperation of Church and State to taken to the extreme degree it is today. The so-called "wacky left" doesnt just want to ensure that a "Federal Religion" isnt established, a fair interpretation of the establishment clause. It wants the complete and total removal of religion from the public square and pushed behind closed doors. Quite a big swing there. There is a big difference between Bush coming out and saying "Christianity if the new Federal Religion" and a bloke working at the County Department of Consumer Affairs being reprimanded for having his desk decorated with a Christmas Tree. The so-called "wacky left" treats both situations equally.

So the original poster is "bandwagon" because he felt spending considerable money and a lot of time on a team that was 2-14 and a complete disaster wasnt a good decision? Well, there is a name for someone who DOES spend a lot of money and time on such a team: SUCKER I love the Bills. Always will. We all do. But if they are a terrible, inept, boring team, I cannot begrudge ANYBODY who finds better things to do with the little bit of free cash and the few free hours each week we all work so hard to bank.

If you think GWB's "Im doing whatever the hell I want and !@#$ you and anyone else who disagrees with me" attitude is annoying and counterproductive both here and abroad, wait till you see Rudy's. Yeah, he became America's soft and cuddly mayor after 9/11, but he is anything but. He does things one way....HIS way. And if you dont like it, youre out on your ass. But on the flip side, he gets things done like few others can. it would be interesting, to say the least.

By JAMES TARANTO Forbidden Thoughts Bill Bennett is standing firm in the face of an attack launched by David Brock's foul MediaMatters.org site. In a week-end roundup, MM clarified what it found invidious about Bennett's comments regarding abortion, crime and race, which we analyzed Friday (italics in original, boldface ours): Bennett and his defenders have seized on Bennett's original statement that it would be "impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible" to actually abort all black babies. But that isn't the issue; of course everyone understands that Bill Bennett doesn't want to abort all black babies. The issue is that Bennett, upon thinking "crime rate," immediately thought of black people. The issue is that Bennett thinks and speaks of crime as an issue of race. Here we see the totalitarian mindset of the politically correct left. "The issue," it turns out, isn't just what Bennett said but what Bennett thinks. Yes, MediaMatters is accusing Bill Bennett of thoughtcrime. It's "1984," and Big Brock is watching. Fortunately, Brock and his force are more Keystone Kops than Thought Police, and therefore this column, like Bennett, is not afraid to entertain some forbidden thoughts. It is a fact that blacks in America have a far higher violent crime rate than nonblacks. MediaMatters and politically correct folks everywhere do not want you to think about this fact, at least if you are white. But which is a bigger problem, the fact itself or white people's thinking about it? To explore that question, consider the practical implications of the high black crime rate. If you are white, it affects you only insofar as you come into contact with black people. Whites often respond to their knowledge of the higher black crime rate by engaging in what we might term defensive stereotyping, or what some have called "rational discrimination": avoiding black neighborhoods, crossing the street to avoid an approaching black man, etc. Importantly, to say that such discrimination is "defensive" or "rational" does not mean it is harmless. Many an innocent black man has been insulted, inconvenienced or worse by such stereotyping. That is why "racial profiling" by law-enforcement agencies is problematic even if it is an effective anticrime tactic. But the implications of the high black crime rate are much more significant to the average black man: He is subject, in his encounters with whites, to the stereotyping we have just described. He is more likely to be a criminal, and thus more likely to be incarcerated and to suffer all the other disadvantages that come with having a "record." He is more likely to be the victim of violent crime, since most crime is intraracial. He is more likely to have a father, son, brother or other relative who is a criminal or a victim of violent crime. At least the last two of these points apply to black women as well. Now, as long as we are living dangerously, let us conduct a thought experiment of our own. Suppose that all whites stopped thinking of crime in racial terms--that is, that their minds were washed clean of any knowledge about racially disparate crime rates. Would this be good for black people? Perhaps it would, up to a point. It would solve the first of the four problems we've listed--that is, it would ease their encounters with whites by doing away with stereotypes based on crime rates. But it would leave untouched the underlying problem of crime in the black community. And that problem would be harder to deal with if a majority of the American population were unable even to acknowledge its existence and thus to think about how to solve it. When white liberals berate white nonliberals for thinking about crime in racial terms, then, they are not acting in a way that actually promises to improve the lives of blacks. Rather, they are showing off their own putative moral superiority. And how seriously can we take even their implicit claims that they do not think of crime in racial terms? Is David Brock any more likely than Bill Bennett to take a midnight stroll through Anacostia? Color us skeptical. Hypocritical Hypotheticals On "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, Juan Williams joined the attack on Bennett. The way in which he did it made our jaw drop, and let us count the ways. This is from the Factiva transcript (alas, not available publicly online); "Brit" is Brit Hume, who was defending Bennett: What's clearly wrong is if you wanted to say, oh, gosh, you know, [1] maybe we should have abortions for every woman who has a history in her family of mental illness or anybody who has a disabled child, or [2] let's get rid of all the Christians, they certainly have been involved in lots of wars. [3] How about the Jews? You know what? [4] We have trouble with older people in this country. Clearly, they, you know, cause a great burden on our Social Security system. Maybe we should do away with some of these older people. You know, Brit, it really speaks to a deeply racist mindset to imagine America somehow as better off if we didn't have those black people around and all those racial issues and all these--you know, so many of these blacks end up in jail, as if they're criminals because they're black. . . . He certainly said it to me. That's what . . . I heard, Brit. . . . Brit, if I'm sitting here on a national talk show and I say, you know, [5] maybe if we killed off these white people, we wouldn't have so many mass murders in America, you'd say, Juan, are you out of your mind? . . . Words have meaning, Brit. . . . I think what you're misunderstanding is it's the idea that he gave voice to this notion. If you were in a Nazi regime and said [6] you know, gee, you know, a lot of these Jewish people have businesses and they dominate the academy, and therefore wouldn't it be better--that's not a good idea, Brit. Not a good idea to give voice to. No fewer than six times in a 10-minute segment, Williams did exactly what Bennett did that so offended him--namely, offer an outrageous hypothetical to illustrate a point. We're no more offended by Williams's doing so than we were by Bennett's, but Williams's hypocrisy is simply mind-boggling. Brilliant! http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007353

Yeah, no kidding. Mick's really surprising me on this issue. Thought he was smarter than this.

Its just amazing how a smart guy like you can be so off base on this issue. Either youre pulling a Debbie or drunk on Kool Aid.

Hows the Kool Aid?

Ya know what? !@#$ Pennington. The guy thought the world owned him something. Now hes got to deal with life, just like the rest of us.

Well, if you take the CONTEXT CTM put forth, than making the statement appear "appallingly stupid" is EXACTLY what Bennett was going for. But hes a white man...so race is something that is NOT to be discussed. Bennett is guilty of stupidity....not Racism.

This whole episode reminds me of that guy down in DC (I think....CTM?) who got shitcanned for using the word "Niggard."

False outrage, special treatment, double standards, witch hunts, blackmail. Its good to know those who "fight" racism....champions of fairness and equality like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have such good, honest tools to work with to do so.

Bennet's statement was dumb....REALLY dumb. But not half as bad IMO as all the usual suspects tripping over each other to out-"outrage" one another. And now weve got something worse... those who try to make this a POLITICAL issue. Nancy Pelosi has called on GWB to condemn the remarks..like HE has anything to do with the situation. Of course, while asking that Bush condemn the remarks of a man who last was in public service almost 15 years ago, she conveniently forgets the recent remarks of a SITTING Congressman (Rangel). I swear, that moron who knocked on my door last night trying to sell me a "miracle vacuum" insulted what little intelligence I have less than what thes politicians.

OOOH....Rush got tounge tied and made an utterance that COULD be construed as racist! DOUBLE yawn. Hey, on American Chopper last week, Grandma Teutel referred to Jorge Posada as "George." SHE must be a racist, too!!!!!!!!

Yawn.

Again, Im not speaking about WHY the government mandated the change. Im speaking strictly about the fact that in the 70s, the government went ahead and mandated big, big changes in both emissions standards and fuel efficiency. Then threw in the double whammy of changing the laws regarding fuel. Radical change was mandated by the government with very much of a "Do it or Else" mentality. And thats something you wont see today. Sure...small changes in efficiency standards and what not will take place. But not like what was seen back in the 70s....the unions, oil companies and auto manufactureres wont allow it. THEY run the show now. As far as the fuel thing goes, correct me if Im wrong, you obviously know more than me on the subject, but octane levels after the removal of tetraethyl lead didnt come back UP until several years later, no?

I wish I was black.

True enough. But thats just chicken vs. egg stuff. Maybe it was the OPEC deal and the rise in foreign car popularity that came first. The point is that back then the Government had the balls to tell the auto makers to get with the program. It came right out and said "You have a few years to get your fuel economy and emissions to a drastically lower level...and you have to do it with less polluting and lower octane fuel to boot.....like it or not." Something like that would NEVER happen today.

I dont think its the public as much as its everyone fron the oil men, to the AFL/CIO to the auto makers lobby that prevents every administration from doing what it did in the late 60s and 70s. That is, tell the auto makers to make a car a lot more fuel efficient and less polluting, or else.

I understand the concept. And drive a car that gets 33 mpg. And bike over 3,000 miles annually. But youre unfair over the other stuff. And this is where government SHOULD step in and do more, something you abhor.

Youve payed over $3/gal. in AK before Katrina?